WATCH: Ocasio-Cortez Supporters Asked To Explain How We'll Pay For 'All That Free Stuff'
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
July 27, 2018
After her upset victory in the Democratic primary over incumbent Rep. Joe Crowley last month, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been touted as "the future" of the Democratic Party, and her open embrace of Democratic Socialism has been enthusiastically embraced by a growing number of Democrats, particularly young Democrats. But how much do the 28-year-old candidate's avid supporters truly understand her particular brand of socialism?
Campus Reform's Cabot Phillips took to the streets of New York's 14th Congressional District to see if the young voters who support her Democratic Socialist vision for America have any ideas about how to actually pay for "all that free stuff" — including "Medicare for all," guaranteed jobs for every American, "housing as a human right," and free college and trade school for all (see more on her platform below).
After getting enthusiastic endorsement of Ocasio-Cortez and Democratic Socialism from all the interviewees, Phillips asked them how they thought America would pay for all of the free stuff she's promising.
"Oh god. I mean...," said one woman. "Us," said her male friend. "Us, I guess," she agreed.
"All of the free things? Well, some of it should come from taxes, but the government should pay for it," another young lady said. When Phillips noted that "the government is funded by taxes," she responded, "Yes."
"I don’t know where the money would come from, but they can figure it out," said one guy with a laugh. When Phillips suggested "more taxes on the rich people," the guy replied, "For sure, man. I'm like, they can afford it."
"Tax corporations, tax the One Percent and find a way to support a living wage," said another young man.
"The people, with a good idea and a good reason to spend their tax money, people wouldn’t actually mind paying more taxes," said another Ocasio-Cortez supporter.
"There are so many more countries out there that are employing more socialism in their government and their politics, and they're doing very well," said the guy who said we should tax the rich the people.
"Is Venezuela doing that?" asked Phillips.
"Ooh, I don't know too much about Venezuela," he replied.
Below are excerpts from Ocasio-Cortez's official platform on some of the ideas discussed above as well as some other hot-button issues (formatting adjusted):
Medicare For All
Improved and Expanded Medicare for All is the ethical, logical, and affordable path to ensuring no person goes without dignified healthcare. Medicare for All will reduce the existing costs of healthcare (and make Medicare cheaper, too!) by allowing all people in the US to buy into a universal healthcare system. What’s even better is that Improved and Expanded Medicare for All includes full vision, dental, and mental healthcare - because we know that true healthcare is about the whole self, not just your yearly physical....
A Federal Jobs Guarantee
Alexandria endorses a Federal Jobs Guarantee, because anyone who is willing and able to work shouldn’t struggle to find employment. A Federal Jobs Guarantee would create a baseline standard for employment that includes a $15 minimum wage (pegged to inflation), full healthcare, and child and sick leave for all. This proposal would dramatically upgrade the quality of employment in the United States, by providing training and experience to workers while bringing much-needed public services to our communities in areas such as parks service, childcare and environmental conservation....
Higher Education / Trade School For All
Roughly every 100 years, the United States expands its public education system to match its increasingly advanced economy. It’s now time to expand our national education system to include tuition-free public college and trade school....
Immigration Justice / Abolish ICE
It’s time to abolish ICE, clear the path to citizenship, and protect the rights of families to remain together....
Tags
Who is online
100 visitors
Please post the lyrics.
The first three items are typical of social democracies. The last item is simply liberalism. None of these have anything to do with distributed (collective) control over the productive resources of an economy. All four of these have nothing whatsoever to do with changing the economic system from capitalism to something else.
Ms. Cortez (as with Bernie Sanders) does not seems to understand that she is not advocating a change from capitalism to socialism but rather advocating heavier taxation and redistribution of wealth. She is advocating social democracy. If this trend continues, the USA will evolve into more of a social democracy than what it currently is - approaching Nordic capitalism.
From each according their abilities and to each according to their needs, and squeeze the money needed to carry out that utopia from the wealthy.
I’d just about reached the breaking point of the squeeze just prior to the tax cuts. Had they strangled me any tighter I seriously would have considered pulling the plug so they could not get one more drop of blood from me. It’s easy to see why so many have given up and closed their doors. The easiest thing for me to do would be to just liquidate my assets and live the rest of my life giving them nothing to tax and redistribute.
That phrase has been misinterpreted. But if you mean that everyone contributes to a society which, in turn, provides basic needs for a modern functioning civil society, then I agree with the blue part. I disagree with the red part. There are the extreme cases of runaway wealth (those at the top of the capitalistic food chain) but for the most part those who have 'a lot of' money typically are the most productive members of society. It would be detrimental to dissuade the most ambitious leaders. So, yes, on sensible progressive taxation but no on attempts to force egalitarian economics.
To expound on this I simply have to point you to the beginning of my sentence:
I specifically started my sentence excluding the likes of the Waltons ('extreme cases of runaway wealth'). The second part of my sentence focuses on those who have worked hard and produced things that the public wanted to purchase or have produced a new technology that businesses were willing to buy.
No such thing as 'free stuff' and Cortez knows this very clearly.
Bottom line is simply where our tax dollars are spent and who receives the benefit.
Tax breaks to billionaires, unneeded/undeserved subsidies to corporations, too little investment in domestic infrastructure/transportation, and the shift to private for profits are but four items that need to be addressed.
I will add this too. It is long past time that Americans learn what Supply Side Economics is and how ill served they have been by this 36 year old economic experiment.
Ill served? What experiment?
In reality, it has improved the lives of the greatest number of people for quite a long time now...including the current good and improving Trump economy.
I think BB thinks we should give the tax breaks to those who don't pay any taxes.
Not the middle class it hasn't. Middle class wages have not even kept up with inflation.
She’s hilarious.
The European socialist welfare economies are able to function as they do because we indirectly subsidize them. They are essentially free-riding by siphoning money from their defense budgets to support their social systems and leaving it to us to protect them through NATO where we pay nearly double the percentage that everybody else agreed to pay. European freeloading off us is a problem that Trump was trying to address.
So given her knowledge of economics and international affairs does she favor us: 1) continuing to carry a disproportionate defense load and subsidizing other countries’ welfare states; 2) reducing our military commitment to (as Trump once suggested) defend only those who pay their fair share militarily; 3) shift our spending to our own welfare state, reduce military spending, and leave (vulnerable Nordic welfare states) to handle Russia as best they can; or 4) some else.
Give me that, give me that Socialism!!!! You look at this video and you'll see the experiment in Socialism in California and how well it has worked.
I've never seen a person who has a lot of ambition who works his or her tail off to be in favor of Socialism. These people who want those with this ambition and good working habits to give them some of their money and provide what they call free stuff are just that, looking for something for free.
But if you ask them to go on and show us how it's done by putting a little extra in the collection plate, they want no part of it. There's nothing stopping anyone from paying a little more in their taxes than they are required to do and those with drive want to keep as much of their hard earned dollars as they can.
You can't blame them. Look around you. So many useless human beings waiting for someone else to pick up the tab for them while they sit on their ass.
The Socialists use these useful idiots to promote Socialism while they have no intentions of being a part of it at all. These useful idiots think it sounds so great, free school, free healthcare, free daycare and if you just let it follow its natural conclusion, they will drain the money right out of the productive citizens until there is no more money or motivation to work to make any, since it all is being taken from them and evenly distributed by an all powerful government they no longer have any control over in the end.
Of course not. If you affix the label of 'socialism' to free handouts then the providers of the handouts (the ambitious, hard-working, productive members of society) will (and should) be against it.
The practice of simply providing free stuff to those who are not productive members of society is an obvious losing proposition. But people need to learn more about the actual dynamics at play. Just calling every bad idea 'socialism' is silly (and pointless). If one is (appropriately) against simplistic redistribution of wealth (literally just giving things away for free with no encouragement for productive participation) then why not call it by its name: redistribution of wealth? Why shroud the problem in an over-hyped, overloaded term ('socialism') which has for decades (especially in the USA) lost all colloquial meaning?
This penchant (especially in the USA - especially with conservative-leaning citizens) for labeling everything 'socialism' shows that there is a great need to buy a vowel.
The bottom line is, regardless of what you call it, when you start handing things that people have worked for to people who do not work for it, eventually, those that have done the work will not be motivated to continue dong the work.....it becomes a 'why bother' situation.
I fully agree. The other obvious problem is that when people receive free stuff they soon start taking it for granted and expect it as an entitlement. Many, it would seem, are content to have others support them while they do nothing productive for society. Some of us are driven to be productive but many (seems like quite a few) are happy to simply receive.
Ergo my long-standing position on this practice is this. It is critical for civil society to have a safety net to enable those who have fallen a chance to regroup, retrain and return again to being a productive member of society. But everyone contributes. Most everyone (barring the most extreme disabled) are capable of contributing - doing something productive. Not only is full contribution good for society, it is good for the individual. Contributing helps give one a sense of purpose and certainly self-respect. So, to me, this is a win-win.
A lose-lose is to hand people free stuff without a corresponding contribution of productive work by the receiver. (Note: the productive work is not necessarily a conventional job. A single mother, for example, properly raising her kids is certainly productive work. The problem of dissuading people from raising kids for a living is noted.)
TIG, I believe you're sincere and if I had more time right now I would say a little more, but the one thing that is required for all of these ideas of yours is you have to have an all powerful government and an all powerful government has one objective and that is to maintain and grow its power.
It's really not that complicated but there are some who make it even more simplistic.
The cons here think that all liberals want free stuff. There is no such thing as "free." I would prefer to live in a society where everyone contributes even if it's picking up litter. Socialists/liberals don't want people sitting around on their asses doing nothing while collecting their "free" shit. We know that stuff costs money.
Giving huge tax breaks to the uber-wealthy is just more supply side bullshit and everybody knows it. I haven't seen the uber-wealthy putting that money back into society in terms of more jobs
Then you totally misunderstand what I have been writing. An all powerful government is the exact opposite of what I have described. In fact I routinely specifically condemn authoritarian rule and statist practices. Further, what I have described does not require an all powerful government but rather an all powerful citizenship. Beyond that, just because I describe something (to inform) does not mean it is my idea or that I even fully support it.
Some good news, unemployment rates are almost to the point of, every able bodied person is able to find a job. Might not be the greatest job, but you also don't get to be the CEO if you couldn't be bothered to learn from the bottom up. Reminds me of the Jim Croce song 'Working at the Car Wash Blues'.
Well TG, why don't we forgo the Socialism part as being the first thing we do and see how well those sitting on their asses doing nothing while collecting "free shit" can kick it off for awhile.
Depends on what you mean by 'socialism'. That term means almost anything nowadays. Typically if someone does not like something they (naïvely) label it 'socialism'. For most of the ascribed meanings I think your sentiment is a no-brainer. Clearly the following notions are not desirable:
If that is what you mean by 'socialism' then I agree with your sentiment.
I'm assuming these things can be paid for the same way Trump now wants to give farmers a handout for fucking up their markets in a trade war.