• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats Seat Anti-Free Market Socialist, AOC on House Financial Committee

Grokmaster said:
Agreeing with our basic economic system is more than a "QUALIFICATION"...it should be a REQUIREMENT, to be in a position to aggregiously damage it, as she may well be.


Her on the Financial Service Committee is like allowing the Red Chines to have our guided missile tech...oh WAIT...the Democrats did that , too, didn't they?


My point is she is a detrimental quantity, in a place where she can do us damage, without a SHRED OF BUSINESS KNOWLEDGE.
Click to expand...

So, you think that anyone that doesn't agree with our system should never be allowed any position in our government? How do you expect our country to progress if that should happen?

Socialism, for all its ills does have some good qualities. In fact parts of our system is very much socialistic in nature. Right from the very beginning of this country in fact. Did you know that?
 
Anagram said:
To satisfy my and your curiosity: list of members
AOC: BA in Economics
Gabbard: BS in Business Administration
Adams: Ph.D in Art education/multicultural education
Lawson: Masters in Public Administration
Axne: MBA
Casten: MS in biochemical engineering
Dean: JD
C. Garcia: Masters in Urban Planning
S. Garcia: JD
McAdams: JD
Phillips: MBA
Porter: JD
Pressley: No college degree
Tlaib: JD

Republicans:

Gonzalez: MBA
Gooden: BBA
Riggleman: Couldn't find
Rose: MS in agricultural economics and JD
Steil: JD and BS in business administration
Click to expand...

Ouch; destroyed.
 
Grokmaster said:
She is an anti-Free Market socialist; that's like putting a vegan in charge of meat production.
Click to expand...

What's the fuss about? She's a newbie who hasn't had a chance to do anything yet. She's said some seriously stupid things, but then so have most of them and so have you. Why not wait until you see what kind of legislation she tries to create, even to back?



At any rate, what kills me is that the argument about her economic wit boils down to "Don't trust Cortez on fiscal planning, trust the people that have us borrowing an extra 600-700 billion a year to give tax cuts to the richest while simultaneously complaining about deficits." So, trust the person accused of not caring about deficits, or trust the people who claim to care about deficits while expanding them even in a good economy?

:Thinking

Riiiiight. I'd prefer neither, but I'll take the one whose deficits will be aimed at public improvement rather than fluffing the richest.




But then, you weren't going into even surface-depth, were you? Just label and attack, move on.
 
Grokmaster said:
Agreeing with our basic economic system is more than a "QUALIFICATION"...it should be a REQUIREMENT, to be in a position to aggregiously damage it, as she may well be.


Her on the Financial Service Committee is like allowing the Red Chines to have our guided missile tech...oh WAIT...the Democrats did that , too, didn't they?


My point is she is a detrimental quantity, in a place where she can do us damage, without a SHRED OF BUSINESS KNOWLEDGE.
Click to expand...

That violates multiple principles inherent in our system. But it actually may violate a very real constitutional requirement. You are demanding a test based on the exercise of speech-as-a-private-citizen as precursor to being allowed to run for office.

Guess which right it violates.





PS: egregiously is spelled "egregiously."

I don't usually play spelling nazi, but I do when someone is acting like someone else is an idiot while being very very wrong themselves.
 
In other news, it was announced that Pee Wee Herman will head the House Armed Services Committee.
 
Kal'Stang said:
So, you think that anyone that doesn't agree with our system should never be allowed any position in our government? How do you expect our country to progress if that should happen?

Socialism, for all its ills does have some good qualities. In fact parts of our system is very much socialistic in nature. Right from the very beginning of this country in fact. Did you know that?
Click to expand...

Socialism: government ownership of the means of production.

Communism (yes, I know you didn't say it): collective private ownership of the means of production resulting from the alleged awesomeness of socialism leading to the dissolution of government for want of need.

______________________


No part of our system is "very much socialistic", especially not in the era just after the escape from the self-defeating and paranoid Articles of Confederation. The massive stretch is a comparison of regulation of private industry to government ownership (if not, what....you don't say), but that stretch is as absurd as massive. No. Even European countries that describe themselves as "democratically socialist" aren't close to actual socialism. They may, say, provide public transportation. But they do not nationalize the steel producers and everyone else down the supply chain, produce the buses themselves, and run the transportation grid that away. (Ditto roads/cars, tunnels/subway, etc).

The closest any of these countries come is, say, building infrastructure (roads tunnels) by contracting private companies, staffing it with people and objects (subway cars; toll booths) by contracting private companies, etc. The only real control is laying down standards about what the specs are and about how the private companies can't be refusing to hire black people.

That isn't anything close to "socialism". Few people understand what "socialism" actually is. "Socialism" = early USSR and China. They called themselves "communist" but they weren't, not even on their master's own teachings. They were authoritarian governments (governmental systems cannot be "socialist" or "communist"), with a socialist economy.

As I said, communism as-defined is a lack of government in some hare-brained utopian state that is just as impossible as anarchy or big-L libertarianism given human nature.
 
Last edited:
Jezcoe said:
I hope they break up Wells Fargo and bring up enough pressure to put people in jail.

That is just one best case scenario IMO.
Click to expand...

Financial Services committee doesn't have the power to do that...
 
Anagram said:
To satisfy my and your curiosity: list of members
AOC: BA in Economics
Gabbard: BS in Business Administration
Adams: Ph.D in Art education/multicultural education
Lawson: Masters in Public Administration
Axne: MBA
Casten: MS in biochemical engineering
Dean: JD
C. Garcia: Masters in Urban Planning
S. Garcia: JD
McAdams: JD
Phillips: MBA
Porter: JD
Pressley: No college degree
Tlaib: JD

Republicans:

Gonzalez: MBA
Gooden: BBA
Riggleman: Couldn't find
Rose: MS in agricultural economics and JD
Steil: JD and BS in business administration
Click to expand...

I suggest a clarification. These don't seem to be "the list" of members, these are the members JOINING the existing committee (and we don't know who has left the existing committee). For example, Maxine Waters is not listed - she seems to have a BA in education from Cal State College - her "qualification" for heading financial services being that she is alive and senior.

As might be expected, the new Democratic members mostly have a degree in something other than business, of those that do (Axne and Phillips), Axne mostly did "touchy-feely" personnel oriented work (leadership development), much or most of it as a government employee. Phillips is heir to a distillery company, a family trust funder, whose real world business experience for another employer is two years working for in motion. Gabbard, I should add, appears to have never worked in business after her degree, other than as a politician and national guard officer.

Otherwise its the usual assortment of parasite sympathetic professions: lawyers, government management degreed, art/multi-culturalism.

By the way, I find it difficult to believe that AOC has a BA in economics, despite her claims (which was a combination of international relations and economics). Should someone find an actual graduation list by Boston University with evidence of this degree and major I'd like to see it cited.

On the other hand, I have seen graduates that manage to learn nothing from their coursework - memorizing for a test and then forgetting it all. If she does have a BA in econ, the reputation of Boston U should be downgraded to that of a junior college.
 
Hedgology said:
You must not be aware of who regulate banks...
Click to expand...

I said fair enough... which is meant to be an acknowledgment of any mistake that I may have made in my first fliplant post.

The article in the OP states that Postal Banks are a thing that the committee may be looking into.

I think if done right, reintroducing Postal banking would be a good thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom