Posted on 07/28/2018 6:58:31 AM PDT by Kaslin
Rising Democratic socialist star Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez explained to Trevor Noah on “The Daily Show” Thursday how she planned to pay for the ideas that she campaigned on in her stunning primary defeat over fourth-ranking House Democrat Joe Crowley (NY).
After Ocasio-Cortez went through the main things she wants government to pay for, including Medicare for all and education, Noah brought up the more practical side of things.
“You always see people coming in with economic arguments, and they say, look, these numbers don’t really add up,” he argued. “You know, in order to get healthcare for everybody, this is what it would cost. That’s going to be troubling. Even if you reverse the Republican tax deal, that’s only going to make up 5% of what we need to pay for Medicare for all. How do you pay for education- how do you pay for all these ideas?”
Ocasio-Cortez responded first by saying she had “sat down with a Nobel Prize economist last week,” laughing, “I can't believe I can say that, it's really weird.”
A meeting with a Nobel Prize economist was likely warranted given that Ocasio-Cortez faced intense criticism for getting basic facts about the unemployment rate wrong in a PBS interview earlier this month. She later tried to walk back her remarks.
However, having met with this prize-winning economist, Ocasio-Cortez presented a plan for getting money for her proposals, arguing first for raising the corporate tax rate.
“One of the things that we saw is, if people pay their fair share,” she said, “if corporations and the ultra-wealthy -- for example, as Warren Buffett likes to say, if he paid as much as his secretary pays, 15 percent -- if he paid a 15 percent tax rate; if corporations paid -- if we reverse the tax bill, but raised our corporate tax rate to 28 percent, which is not even as high as it was before, if we do those two things and also close some of those loopholes, that's $2 trillion right there.”
“That's $2 trillion in ten years, and it's -- one of the wide estimates is that it's going to take $3 trillion to $4 trillion to transition us to 100 percent renewable energy economy,” she continued. “So we got $2 trillion from folks paying their fair share, which they were not paying before the Trump tax bill. They weren't -- like they weren't paying that before the Trump tax bill. If we get people to pay their fair share, that's $2 trillion in ten years.”
She then argued for implementing a carbon tax claiming that would make “a large amount of revenue.”
“Now, if we implement a carbon tax on top of that so that we can transition and financially incentivize people away from fossil fuels,” she said, “if we implement a carbon tax, that's an additional amount of a large amount of revenue that we can have.”
She concluded by calling for a “reprioritization” of funds away from defense spending.
“The last key, which is extremely, extremely important, is reprioritization,” she argued. “Just last year we gave the military a $700 billion budget increase, which they didn't even ask for! They're, like, we don't want another fighter jet! They're, like, don't give us another nuclear bomb, you know? They didn't even ask for it and we gave it to them. And so a lot of what we need to do reprioritize what we want accomplish as a nation.”
“That is a decision that requires political and moral courage from both parts of the aisle,” she emphasized.
I’m sorry but I have to disagree. Crazy eyes are NEVER cute imo.
Every day she self-immolates by treating American politics like a barmaid. It’s high time she went back behind that bar and leave the politics for those will the intellectual wherewithal to take it seriously.
= = = = = = = = =
She is doing US a ‘favor’.
She is showing her whole hand rather than dribble out enough to get elected.
Once elected in a ‘safe’ zone she can ‘turn into’ all the idiots that are now our representatives - all Bat Guana crazy, Maxine W, Sheila Lee Jackson(when is she going to change her name?— hate to say it but how many ‘old(er) timers vote for her because of Lee-Jackson? Granted the list is definitely short but...) John Lewis, Pelosi (she presented the answer on Jeopardy on Fri 7/27 and I must say the makeup does her NO good anymore..the ONLY outstanding thing about her is those CRAZY EYES - guess buying Botox by the RR carload isn’t quite like papers buying ink by the RR carload) and far too many other idiots to add to my list.
Cary Grant.
Liberals and their affinity for 'prizes' and 'awards' that they themselves bestow. Lovely...
She definitely verges on having “crazy eyes”.
HOw are you going to pay for all this?
Pay? Sorry, I don’t believe in capitalism!
Lol. Inside every crazy eyed lib womyn is a trigglypuff just waiting to burst out.
A little perfunctory push-back to see if the wise Latina has the stuff. If the Meia decides to go after her it will suggest that the old Democrat party still has a pulse. If the Media backs off then you will know that the Dems are now Bernie’’s party.
Connie Britton. Alison Janney. Two women who just get bettter looking!!
I see that the fact that she had an open and unapologetic anti-Semite on her campaign team has already been dropped into the memory black hole. If that had been a conservative, it would be headline news for the rest of his public life.
But then, the left also touts a former KKK Grand Dragon as “the conscience of the senate” and lionized a drunk murderer.
Proof beyond doubt that one can be born without a brain and still speak.
She is now the definitive definition of BIMBO.
And, sadly, also the definitive definition of DEMOCRAT.
Wind turbines are made of pretty sturdy stuff.
And to transport and build them, you'd have to use gas-burning trucks by the gazillion.
You have to pay off those built-in costs and subtract them from whatever puny return you get from the "free" wind power.
I wonder if anyone has crunched the numbers.
I wager it takes a *long* time before windmills pay for themselves.
In computer speak, she has a hot bit in her operand register and the ECC is kaput.
I grew up in the 70s and 80s. That song helped me become conservative. My question after that line has been “Then what”? since I was 15.
I think that the point for the left is, they have been searching for a “rising star” to get their lazier voters (especially the many who can’t be bothered with voting unless they’re “represented”, by which they mean identity politics) to come out. They’ve been flailing for this “star”. They tried with the latest Kennedy incarnation in the response to President Trump’s SOTU address, and that fizzled. They’ve tried with some others. They’re trying to make this one stick. She’s tong, she’s female, she’s a minority, and she’s a political “outsider”, so their answer to Trump. Unfortunately she’s all style and no substance. Trump had a long background of achievement behind him, outside of politics.
The left’s “blue wave” is looking more and more like a smurf piss puddle (stole that from a YT comment) without something to get all those Obozo voters out there in the mid-terms, the ones who can’t be bothered if they can’t vote for a “brother” or a “sistah”.
Oh, and also, too many Latinos-not a whole lot, but too many for leftist comfort-have defected to Trump.
Taking an ever larger slice of a shrinking pie has always worked.
Just ask Socialist Genius Ocasio
Wasn’t this fraud and LIB loser a bartender with a worthless “degree” just a couple months ago? LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.