The Tail that wags the Dog
The newly elected Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who is frequently described as the youngest elected official in Congress, was actually the daughter of an architect. She attended Boston University and graduated cum laude from BU's College of Arts and Sciences with a bachelors degree in international relations and economics. During her college years she was also an intern in the immigration office of Ted Kennedy. Later she would enter politics as a Socialist, activist and community organizer. She defeated incumbent democrat rep Joe Crowley in the 2018 midterm election and immediately won instant fame from the msm. The media liked to present her as a "bartender", a job she held for a while, rather than refer to her education.
Her victory, of course, was an upset win and something of an achievement. A similar achievement to that of the election of Donald Trump in 2016. As a matter of fact, there are many similarities. Like Donald Trump, Ms Cortez does not waste her time trying to appeal to moderates. As she put it after her upset victory, you don't win by spending all your time trying to win over those with other opinions. The other strong similarity is that Ms Cortez speaks from her gut feelings rather than from a more reasoned approach. There is one big difference between the two populists. When Trump speaks candidly he gets ripped apart by the media, when Cortez does it the media treats it as a kind of advocacy for the disenchanted.
As for the democratic party,Ms Cortez represents a formidable problem. On her first day in congress Ms Cortez organized a climate change sit-in, in Speaker Pelosi's office. Pelosi was nowhere to be found and never did comment on it.
The attention Ms Cortez gets from the media gives her tremendous influence over the party. The fact that Pelosi acts on behalf of the far left cannot be denied. Moderate democrats are ignored. Right now the Speaker seems to be on a head on collision with the President for the sole purpose of handing him a personal defeat. The democrats are adopting Ms Cortez radical positions (like it or not) on single payer Medicare for all, free tuition for all, abolishing ICE and to top it all off, guaranteed jobs & family leave. Ms Cortez also thinks that there should not be any budgetary restraints on congress in producing such legislation.
So, the question becomes will American voters buy it? Will America become the very thing that has destroyed so many countries?
2020 will provide the answers.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
259 visitors
To be filed under unfinished dreams
Later she would enter politics as a Socialist, activist and community organizer.
Hmm, that sounds familiar and tells me all I need to know. I just don't think most Americans are ready for a far left socialist society. It's never worked anywhere that it's been attempted.
As for the democratic party,Ms Cortez represents a formidable problem
Yep, she sure does. You simply don't mess around with her Highness Queen Nanny. Retribution and punishment will surely be handed out eventually. She will be absorbed, resistance is futile.
Right now the Speaker seems to be on a head on collision with the President for the sole purpose of handing him a personal defeat.
All too obvious to the voters who will punish her in 2020. The speaker and the pipsqueak will turn out to be gifts that keep on giving to the Republicans. AOC appears to be a nice person, and likely means well, but her ideas are outdated and impractical. She's in way over her head.
Conservatives give AOC all the attention online. Apparently the ideas of a 29 YO freshman NY Congresswoman scares the gop.
If a marginal tax rate of 70% being applied only to incomes over $5,000,000 is radical then Dwight Eisenhower was extremist.
If the idea of all Americans being covered by health insurance is such a radical idea none other than Mitt Romney is a radical...
If the idea of all being treated equally under the law is radical then Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Hamilton were radicals.
I keep reading conservatives say AOC is dumb but this article plainly puts that Fox News false narrative to rest once and for all.
I don't think she's dumb. I think she has a lot of laudable feelings on important issues - feelings I share. Perhaps because she has limited experience, she hasn't thought through some of the details of solving important problems, but that doesn't make her dumb. She's imperfect for sure and I don't agree with her on some - ok probably most - things, but personally, I like her.
At minimum, she's not an asshole and you can't say that about most people in Washington.
She's pretty close.
That little stint of running around the Hall's trying to find McConnell ("Where's Waldo" come to life), and then not having an extra letter to give him, was Hilariously ass like !
In those days we only ran deficits for wars and then we raised taxes to pay off the bill. Today we have a $22 Trillion deficit and there is no appetite in congress for paying off any of that other than the interest, not to mention how we would pay for the programs the girl from New York recklessly babbles about.
If the idea of all Americans being covered by health insurance is such a radical idea none other than Mitt Romney is a radical...
Mitt Romney is a moderate/to/liberal Republican who gave MA a program called MassHealth. It works great, recipients pay 0 for it. That proves how well a program can work in a state with a population of 6,558,724 and a poverty level of 752,071 (2016 numbers). It would be a killer for a state like Mississippi or New Mexico.
If the idea of all being treated equally under the law is radical then Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Hamilton were radicals.
We are all equal at birth. Then it's up to each individual to make his/her own way
I keep reading conservatives say AOC is dumb but this article plainly puts that Fox News false narrative to rest once and for all.
Her statements are fairly dumb. I thought I was being decent by not including them. (recently she said the world would end in 12 years). I wanted to simply deal with her ideology and it's effect on the democratic party. BTW, one impression I'm getting is that the democratic party is more hard left than moderate, that would explain Pelosi's actions, wouldn't it? Isn't that why democratic Presidential candidates are now apologizing for supporting strict criminal punishment?
Reagan went on a Pentagon binge with the Soviets, plus a few proxy wars, and he cut taxes. George Bush started wars and cuts taxes. Their terms both ended with massive economic crashes.
Why do you say things that aren't true?
October 19th, 1987 and September 19th, 2008 says that you are very wrong. Bush bailed out Wall Street (TARP) and GM/Chrysler.
GDP in Reagan's last year, 1988, was 4.2% The idea that his term ended in a "massive economic crash" is an Orwellian assault on the English language.
That's why I said "in those days" - PRIOR TO DOMESTIC DEFICIT SPENDING. Eisenhower was President from 1953 - 1961
Reagan's policies brought forth the greatest economic peacetime expansion the nation has ever seen....
George Bush had the unfortunate happenstance of being in the white house when Clinton's policies finally came to fruition.....
Don't really know that much about history do ya....
NY Times; The Reagan Boom the Greatest ever ...
Not really even close. Bordering on idiotic as far as 1987 is concerned.
Bush presided over a financial crisis caused by a law signed by Clinton, which passed Congress with a veto-override sized majority.
Reagan served from 1981 through 1989
He had a recession which started in in 1982 and saw unemployment rise to 10% plus, not coming down to 6% until 1987.
Among the many, many things Reagan threw at the recession was the elimination of bank regulations, starting in 1982, which proved almost fatal to the banking industry.
By the time Reagan left office in 1989, over a 1,000 Savings & Loans had failed causing the Banking crisis of 1990 and another 2 year recession.
.
Bush, Tarp, the Housing crisis, GM and Chrysler of 2007-2008 doesn't really need to be rehashed, does it?
Yes, Reagan's and Bush' final years were followed by major financial recessions
Reagan had the unfortunate experience of being in his last year of office when the results of his early years of banking reformation
came to fruition
while he was slowly being incapacitated by Alzheimer's and an Administration and wife who could not handle it.
High unchecked financial growth is ALWAYS followed by a painful correction/recession. Reagan was not spared this truth, although he was out of office
and being thought of kindly when the worst of the 1990 recession became evident.
Bush Sr. was left with that mess and we all know how that turned out...
a one term President who deserved better and another 4 years...
Reagan's and Bush' final years were followed by major financial recessions
Wow.
First, of course, The claim was their terms ended in recessions. So to move the goalposts and claim their final years were followed by major financial recessions is disingenuous.
The first major financial recession that followed Reagan's tenure didn't start until 2007. Have fun blaming him for that.
Yes bring it up. People still have blue ones on their roofs in Puerto Rico.
: )
The banking crisis started in 1989 while Reagan, though incapacitated, was still POTUS, and the direct results of his actions of deregulation started in 1982.
I don't think there is any American alive who doesn't recognize that the wheels fell off off the economy in 2007 while Bush was still POTUS.
Really Sean, the links are meant to be read...
I think you mean the Savings and Loan industry.... Wasn't Reagan's fault. Yes he did advocate rewriting the laws trying to keep them afloat....
You know who the Keating five were?
The "Keating Five" included John McCain , R-Ariz., Dennis DeConcini, D-Ariz., John Glenn , D-Ohio, Alan Cranston , D-Calif., and Donald Riegle , D-Mich.
The heart of the S&L scandal? Campaign donations for influence help in getting the interest rates for S&L's lifted? (which was the death knell for the S&L's)
You aught to check it out. interesting reading..... and not one bit falls on Reagan. (it would have happened if Carter had won)
And pew uses the NBER's data or at least some of it in talking about the 6 month recession of '81 which was a result of Carters policies not Reagans. Reagan took action that stopped the immediate fall but didn't result in a turnaround for almost another year, but when his policies finally took effect the economy took off like a Saturn Five on the way to the moon... Set records for growth that still stand today.....
Economics is an art not a science. you can take any set of data and make it appear as you want it to....
Reagan's polices didn't create the longest recovery the nation has seen, but they did create the greatest.... Even though you can get any number of economist soothsayers to argue it was the worst......
The Economy under Reagan was one of the foundational reasons he won reelection in the greatest landslide in American political history....
Yeah those three weeks he was President was a "major economic crash." Please provide data for the great recession of January 1-20, 1989.
I don't think there is any American alive who doesn't recognize that the wheels fell off off the economy in 2007 while Bush was still POTUS
Did you post this to the wrong thread again? Since I just wrote a major recession started in 2007, you don't really need to restate what I just wrote. If it makes you feel better you self righteously proclaim that Bush was in face President in 2007, as if some imaginary person is debating that with you too.
eally Sean, the links are meant to be read
You really should read your own links, or learn to focus on the discussion. Seriously, this is embarrassing for you.
You jumped in a discussion to defend the claim that Reagan's term of office ended "in a massive economic crash," which is silly enough considering the economy was growing at a robust 4% in his last full quarter in office. Then you, for one can only guess at the reason, provide a link to a recession that occurred at the beginning of his first term.
Do you really not understand that his term of office didn't end in 1982? OR did you realize how silly you looked trying to claim an economy growing at 4% was in a massive economic crash" and tried to move the goalposts, yet again, away from the argument you've lost?
The banking crisis, a result of Reagan's relaxing banking regulations repeatedly , starting in 1982, during his first recession, came to a tipping point in 1989 resulting in the
Savings & Loan crisis recession.
No.
Did you not just tell Epistte she was wrong for stating the same thing? Get a grip, boy.
How so? Debate and reading the provide links is supposed to be educational.
Jumped into a conversation? Really? is this your seed? Have you ever seeded anything Sean? Or are you just hear to bust balls over things you misread ?
Keep talking Sean, you're only proving a point about reading with a preconceived perception and ignoring the message.
You are aware that every Doctor that actually examined him stated that his Alzheimer's didn't set in until he was actually out of office for more than five years?
I'll go with Snopes, a liberal biased fact checking organization.....
Did Ronald Reagan Have Alzheimer’s Disease While in Office?
Clearly they say it is unproven, but going through their investigation clearly every doctor who was examining him for just such loss of faculties during his presidency clearly state that there were no signs at all.....
He was first diagnosed in 94 and revealed it to the public himself......
Despite what some in the media report or claims Ron jr made to sell books.... Reagan's performance against Mondale was from the questions that were asked, they weren't the ones the campaign was given to prepare for the debate. Mondale didn't have that issue. and Reagan looked out of sorts during the debate. I was there. Subsequest debates were under the proviso that if the questions weren't the ones sent prior to, there would be no debate.... Never happened again...
The claim is bogus...
I thought he did, but they wouldn't listen to me..... they fired me when I told them they were going to lose if they didn't fight.....
They didn't and he lost to a democrat nobody.....
and record unemployment which did not drop below 6% until 1987.
Honestly, i think we all revere Reagan and excuse some of his glaring shortcomings.
Runaway economies always crash. That is why the Fed regulates interest rates.
Runaway growth resuleted in runaway inflation and the highest interest rates ever.
Do you remember what the interest rates were in the 80's?
All time high of 18.1 in 1981 (Reagan) and settled very slowly to 12% in 1990.
And as soon as the Cold War ended, the bottom fell out of government contracts, never really recovered...
I don't remember what Nancy said was in the astrology.
I have too much first hand experience with Alzheimer's (which was not an actual diagnoses until the mid 70's and ironically 1983 was the first time it was recognized nationally with a recognition Month by Congress) to believe that Reagan was not in it's early stages after the second election.
In 1984 NIA begins to fund Alzheimer’s Disease Centers and establishes a nationwide network for Alzheimer’s research.
There were too many times int he last 3 years of his office where Ron Sr. was on TV, or suddenly unavailable or confused to say that he did not have many, many symptoms long before his official diagnoses. Nancy protected him and his legacy/reputation.
At what point does impairment/senility become a named disease, especially in the infancy of Alzheimer's as a diagnoses.
Yeah that's a pretty sound reasoned review. Like it says, Congress did it.....
One line stands out.....
This is the same thing Clinton advocated for in eliminating LTV restrictions in his push for everyone to have their own home.... Better managed than during the S&L debacle, they, (fannie mae and freddy mac) held their standards against LTV creep as long as they could. Way farther than they should have. Bad loans became investment grade bad loans used as collateral and the banks pushed them into the insurance investment funds....
It caught up with them.....in 2008.
This is what happens when Government bends knee to investors in congressional candidates to give them what they want..... I know Reagan thought he was doing a great thing when he signed that law. I'm sure if he was alive when it was all said and done he would have thought different...
Politics is a strange business for damned sure
I never saw it and during the last four years and I was there almost every day.
YES, Nancy was his protector no doubt, no more loyal wife one could ask for....
My mother in law is suffering from it now, and yes we saw the signs while Dad was still alive. We took her in for four years until we were forced to place her. We know the signs also.
I don't know all we have is what the best medical minds said during and after his presidency and I didn't see it in any way....
So pardon me if for once I agree with the doctors reports that snopes cites.... Many claim but none have the proof and what evidence there is says no....
I'll have to go with that...
Yes, I am also aware that a recent Navy Rear Admiral in charge of Trump's health declared Trump ridiculously healthy
GAWD, I didn't need the reminder...... THANKS, NOT!
I disagree with that. I got my home under what he was trying to do. With not having to have a 20% down payment. It was a government program that helped me only to have to pay something like 3k down. Still in the home.
What I consider the bad loans were people getting homes for more than they were worth.
Haha. It's in the stars I tell ya.
Two things were happening..... Allowable LTV was reaching 130% in some markets in a no down, no provable income, no docs environment. That was on the lending side..... Those commission checks were pouring in it was a feeding frenzy.
The banking side, particularly WAMU, (who was using inhouse appraisers setting values based upon prior appraisals) were setting the values based upon what was needed to close the loan irrelevant of what is actually appraised for before....
130% no doc no down with the bank setting the values at inflated non market values. Once the government backed off fannie mae and these mortgages were allowed to be packaged as investment grade, the stage was set....
It took about 6-7 years before the investment bubble burst all the while I'm listening to investors claim that realestate values never go down, grab something sit on it for a year and then sell it. you'll make a ton....
Right. I stuck with 80% LTV with all docs.... I kept my properties without a hitch, every single one of the others lost all of theirs. (including a sister that bought into the sham hype)
Wasn't Bush's fault, the policies that allowed it to happen were put into place during the Clinton administration.....
Eh, I still don't necessarily trust appraisals. I have seen houses in my area that are appraised at more than mine, even though I have seen the house and know it is in worse shape. I have also seen appraisals that list a house the same as mine, even when I know the house is better.
But sounds like you know more about this than I do.
My point is, it was some of these government programs that allowed me to get a house to begin with.
Then again, we may be talking about different things. I am thinking about letting people get a loan for more of the house instead of having to save up for twenty years for a down payment.
Then I still get pissed about the packaging and selling of loans. If a bank makes a loan they should stick with it, not be able to sell it off. Never understood that. Unless everything is over inflated to begin with.
That made me chuckle also......
Well the idea is to allow them to reinvest the capital into another loan..... (continue making money) with a cut off the discount it was sold at.. (yes a kickback)
But I agree old school you loan the money you should carry thru with the contract..... That's another of my bedrock principles of borrowing money from a bank. We are both in the deal long term.......
Used to have a WAMU account dumped them when I got a flier in the mail saying they were offering me 125% to refi my home.......
7 accounts gone the next day, you should have seen the look on the CSM of the local bank I walked into needing 8 accounts all at once....
18 months later, WAMU was gone.....
I started with my bank. My loan has since been sold twice. Pisses me off.
IMO the title to what we agreed to payments for should not be a commodity in their investment schemes.
It is almost like them packaging up the title to my home and selling it to who ever, just for some fast cash and to free up equity.
There are two legal way to treat with a bank over a mortgage.
one is called title theory the other is called lien theory... Title theory is primarily limited to the New England states and one or two others and Lien theory is used throughout the rest of the states....
Title theory goes like this...
The bank owns the real estate, they grant you a mortgage and along with the mortgage comes a trust that gives you possession and terminates when the mortgage is paid off and a clear deed is transferred to you..... Throughout this process the bank actually legally owns the property. YOU have a lien on the bank for possession of the property.....
Lien theory is kinda the opposite, YOU own the property, you ask the bank for a loan posting the property as collateral. in exchange for granting the loan, YOU post the property in a deed of trust securing the loan. YOU remain in legal ownership of the property with the Bank having a lien against it for specific performance. The deed of trust is subject to the mortgage and is attached to the property.
Lien theory allows a bank to sell the underlying mortgage to anyone they want at whatever price they want. (usually discounted) as long as they uphold the terms of the mortgage....
None of it matters as long as you know where to make the payment cause YOU OWN THE PROPERTY! the bank does not.... So yes, they are not only packaging up yours but probably several dozen others also being sold at a discount to investors who are looking at the future value of the combined notes...... Mortgages have future cash values just like bonds and insurance policies...... Any financial document that has a cash value, the holder can transfer, the bank is the holder of the mortgage they can negotiate a price and sell it just like any other financial commodity...... Specifically under the terms that none of this effects the grantor of the deed of trust that is you.
Now why is that? cause without the Deed of Trust you granted to the bank attaching the property YOU OWN, the mortgage is worthless... All of these values are dependent on the value of the underlying real estate.....
They are making money of your property without you even knowing about it..... based upon the future value of the mortgage as long as you make the payments....
One of the first questions I ask a bank when looking at a mortgage package is....
"DO YOU SELL YOUR MORTGAGES" if they answer yes, I get up and leave.... they don't get a second chance....
Absolutely. She's the new poster child for the Bullshit Left.
If by "scares", you mean "demonstrates how stupid you have to be to support socialist ideology" then OK. I'm not sure that's how normal people would use the word, though. The fact is that you can't buy the kind of help she gives the GOP. And she's so clueless she doesn't even know she's doing it. She acts like a teenager in a Disney movie. It's hilarious.
Ike is still the only POTUS to preside over three recessions.
That's not what she's talking about, though, is it? See...even you can't bring yourself to defend her lunacy.
They were radicals in their day. However they were also not morons, their facts were correct, and they planned carefully.
Really?? Has she figured out that "working two jobs" does not suppress the unemployment rate? Has she worked out that you can't actually pay for 10 years of socialist healthcare with 12 months of Pentagon savings? Has she figured out that "you just pay for it" is not actually a plan? Has she demonstrated the ability to do any math at all??
Because if she can't work any of that out, I'm really skeptical that she's smart enough to understand that we're in a global economy competing for business. Or that assessing stupidly high taxes on something like stock trading simply sends that activity to a competitor. Or that Medicare for All represents about a trillion dollars a year in corporate welfare.
Now, if her real goal is simply to replace Bernie Sanders as America's token leftist fringe nutjob, then I think she's doing brilliantly.
Someone is a little drunk on power right now and has little experience in the real world much less the real world of politics.
Her foolish remarks though will not help her party. Presidents don't need to be a team player as much as Congressional members do.
I see many bumps and bruises in her future.
I think she should back off and learn her job before being so vocal. And with all the well-deserved criticism of Trump being factually challenged, she should realize how important it is to be able to back up her statements if she wants to gain credibility. As the Washington Post fact checker says (about comments of hers which they gave Three Pinocchios):
"Ocasio-Cortez deserves credit for using her high profile to bring attention to income inequality. However, she undermines her message when she plays fast and loose with statistics."
She's too far left for me, but I'd at least take her more seriously if she took more care with her comments.
Gotta agree with you Katrix. She is a young inexperienced freshmen with a big mouth and way to left for me. She also says really inflammatory comments. Not my cup of tea at all.
Sandy voted against a bill opening the government because it would fund ICE. She's a moron.
Should her ideas ever take hold, ICE will be superfluous.
She'll be building a wall to keep people in.
When did this become her idea? People on the left have been saying this for years. Myself included.
These ideas are nothing new. You give this woman way to much credit. Especially for things that were not her ideas to begin with.
Yup, but now the democratic party has adopted it. She may not be the first, but she moved the ball.
These ideas are nothing new. You give this woman way to much credit. Especially for things that were not her ideas to begin with.
I give her "credit" for getting elected by proposing those idea's - up front. We had a President not long ago who campaigned by way of a fairly moderate campaign and then shortly after being elected governed from the far left. A radical in the White House. At least she was honest about what she wants to do. I can only question/condemn those who voted for her.
If you are talking about Obama, I would not call him far left. He did many things the far left hated.
As we look at the democratic party only a few years later, it may seem like he wasn't so far left, but he did for a brief time "transform" the nation - tragically!
I wouldn't even give her that much credit.
Like I said, the left has been wanting something like Medicare for all for years. Why shouldn't she run on it?
I would argue that there are no moderates anymore. Well, the few that are get pushed to the side.
Sorry Vic. Went to reply and didn't hit reply to you.