US "The Squad" Megathread - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Talib Derangement Syndrome

I honestly only know about American politics from what I read on the Internet but since we all love shitting on leftists I figured we'd get a kick out of this. Also it's trending on Twitter so you know it's important.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...irect=on&noredirect=on&utm_term=.960552c9ba53

NEW YORK — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old political novice running on a low budget and an unabashedly liberal platform, upset longtime U.S. Rep. Joseph Crowley on Tuesday in the Democratic congressional primary in New York.

The surprise victory by the community organizer in a district that includes parts of the Bronx and Queens came after an energetic, grassroots campaign that mustered more than enough support in a low-turnout race that many had expected to be an easy win for Crowley, a member of the Democratic House leadership.

“The community is ready for a movement of economic and social justice. That is what we tried to deliver,” said Ocasio-Cortez, who has never held elected office and whose candidacy attracted only modest media attention.

She told The Associated Press after her victory that she didn’t have enough money to do polling in the race, but felt in her gut that her message had a chance to connect.

“I live in this community. I organized in this community. I felt the absence of the incumbent. I knew he didn’t have a strong presence,” she said.

Crowley has been in Congress since 1999 and hadn’t faced an opponent in a primary election since 2004, when Ocasio-Cortez was just a teenager. He was considered a candidate to become the next House speaker if Democrats win the majority.

“It’s not about me,” Crowley, 56, told his supporters at a campaign party following his loss. “It’s about America. I want nothing but the best for Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. I want her to be victorious.”

He later played guitar with a band at the election night gathering, and dedicated the first song, Bruce Springsteen’s “Born to Run,” to Ocasio-Cortez.

Crowley represents New York’s 14th Congressional District, where he is also the leader of the Queens Democratic party.

Ocasio-Cortez was outspent by an 18-1 margin during her race but won the endorsement of some influential groups on the party’s far left, including MoveOn, as well as the actress Cynthia Nixon, who is running for governor. She defeated Crowley by 15 percentage points.

Born in the Bronx to a mother from Puerto Rico and a father who died in 2008, Ocasio-Cortez said she decided to challenge Crowley to push a more progressive stance on economic and other issues.

She attended Boston University, where she earned degrees in economics and international relations, and also spent time working in the office of the late U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy.

After graduating, she returned to the Bronx where she became a community organizer. In the 2016 presidential campaign she worked for U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Among her issues is expanding the Medicare program to people of all ages and abolishing Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. She recently went to Tornillo, Texas, to protest against policies that have separated parents from their children at the southern U.S. border.

Ocasio-Cortez gained some internet attention for a campaign video called “The Courage to Change,” a two-minute spot for which she wrote the script and featured footage from her own home.

Crowley is chair of the House Democratic Caucus, the fourth-highest ranking position in Democratic leadership in that chamber of Congress.

His loss drew the attention of President Donald Trump.

“Wow! Big Trump Hater Congressman Joe Crowley, who many expected was going to take Nancy Pelosi’s place, just LOST his primary election. In other words, he’s out! That is a big one that nobody saw happening. Perhaps he should have been nicer, and more respectful, to his President!” he tweeted.

The Republican candidate for the office, Anthony Pappas, is running unopposed and had no primary. Pappas teaches economics at St. John’s University.

She was a Bernie campaigner, is supported by BLM, and wants to abolish Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. Also this was in a solid-blue Congressional District so you know she's a shoo-in for next Congress.

But hey, we did get to see Trump laugh at Crowley on Twitter.

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

Allow Billionaires? What does that mean? Not steal from billionaires? Not murder billionaires?

Like... it's allowed because it's their goddamn money. The government didn't give it to them.

 

[Tanner Glass]

Allow Billionaires? What does that mean? Not steal from billionaires? Not murder billionaires?

Like... it's allowed because it's their goddamn money. The government didn't give it to them.

I hate to agree with anyhing AOC says or even contextualize it, but technically there are instances where the government is basically giving money to billionaires.

The easiest example is Jeff Bezos (CEO/Owner of Amazon.com) who makes $27,000,000 a day.

However, a huge number of his employees (warehouse workers, order pickers, forktruck drivers, call center people) that number in the tens of thousands are paid so little in urban areas that they qualify and use welfare/SNAP/government assistance in those areas. The money that Bezos saves in not paying his employees is made up by the government and he personally keeps the difference, so in essence you are giving money indirectly to Jeff Bezos (if you live in Seattle or an area with a large Amazon fuffilment center).

This is on top of his company getting huge tax breaks/stipends/write offs for opening large job centers in specific areas (for example, Amazon will recieve $1,500,000,000 in incentives from the state of NY for their "second headquarters" being located there, plus other incentives and a fair amount of those NY workers will be on SNAP/welfare/whatever as a very small portion of the expected 50,000 jobs will be high level executives AND they're getting another $500,000,000 from Virginia as well).

Corporate welfare really does need to end but it's unlikely as some of this money makes it way back to the politicians and a common sense person would realize that if you taxed Jeff Bezos at 70% (over 10mil, which he would make in 10 hours on Jan 1st) instead of whatever bracket he is at (30%?) that Jeff Bezos would simply move to a place that doesn't tax him as hard (in reality or on paper), which means America is getting 0% of a higher number instead of 30% of a lower number. It also means that it's less likely he would create jobs here when Amazon is international and where the corporate headquarters is located is largely immaterial for them.

But it is a real problem, her solution is just insane.

 

[MightyBiteySnake]

I hate to agree with anyhing AOC says or even contextualize it, but technically there are instances where the government is basically giving money to billionaires.

The easiest example is Jeff Bezos (CEO/Owner of Amazon.com) who makes $27,000,000 a day.

However, a huge number of his employees (warehouse workers, order pickers, forktruck drivers, call center people) that number in the tens of thousands are paid so little in urban areas that they qualify and use welfare/SNAP/government assistance in those areas. The money that Bezos saves in not paying his employees is made up by the government and he personally keeps the difference, so in essence you are giving money indirectly to Jeff Bezos (if you live in Seattle or an area with a large Amazon fuffilment center).

This is on top of his company getting huge tax breaks/stipends/write offs for opening large job centers in specific areas (for example, Amazon will recieve $1,500,000,000 in incentives from the state of NY for their "second headquarters" being located there, plus other incentives and a fair amount of those NY workers will be on SNAP/welfare/whatever as a very small portion of the expected 50,000 jobs will be high level executives AND they're getting another $500,000,000 from Virginia as well).

Corporate welfare really does need to end but it's unlikely as some of this money makes it way back to the politicians and a common sense person would realize that if you taxed Jeff Bezos at 70% (over 10mil, which he would make in 10 hours on Jan 1st) instead of whatever bracket he is at (30%?) that Jeff Bezos would simply move to a place that doesn't tax him as hard (in reality or on paper), which means America is getting 0% of a higher number instead of 30% of a lower number. It also means that it's less likely he would create jobs here when Amazon is international and where the corporate headquarters is located is largely immaterial for them.

But it is a real problem, her solution is just insane.

That's whats so fascinating about her: she does point out real issues here and there, that's not the problem. The problem is that she's so hopelessly batshit insane/unbelievably stupid that any "solution" she pitches would be WORSE than the original problem.

 

[Haramburger]

First League of Legends, now Donkey Kong 64

GAMERS RISE UP

 

[Tanner Glass]

That's whats so fascinating about her: she does point out real issues here and there, that's not the problem. The problem is that she's so hopelessly batshit insane/unbelievably stupid that any "solution" she pitches would be WORSE than the original problem.

Yeah, it really makes it worse. To compound it further, even if the government did somehow successfully tax Jeff Bezos at 70% and you took all tax loopholes/tricks/kickbacks whatever off the table - there are only so many "Jeff Bezos" you can tax like that (there's like 5 I think).

At 70% of $27,000,000/day - let's call it $19 mil - that would be roughly ~$7 billion dollars taken in by the government. The government has no idea how to make healthcare work inside of it's ~$4.5 TRILLION DOLLAR BUDGET so realistically what the fuck is making that increase by a very small amount (from 4.5 trillion to 4.57 trillion) going to even begin to do the the issue. You (apparently) can't even build a border wall for less than $20 billion.

Healthcare is a real issue and it's insane for her to think "if we throw more money at it will fix itself" when not only does American healthcare have a huge number of complete full system issues but throwing money at it is part of the reason it's so bad in the first place (Also, see the price of college tuition and housing costs).

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

I hate to agree with anyhing AOC says or even contextualize it, but technically there are instances where the government is basically giving money to billionaires.

The easiest example is Jeff Bezos (CEO/Owner of Amazon.com) who makes $27,000,000 a day.

However, a huge number of his employees (warehouse workers, order pickers, forktruck drivers, call center people) that number in the tens of thousands are paid so little in urban areas that they qualify and use welfare/SNAP/government assistance in those areas. The money that Bezos saves in not paying his employees is made up by the government and he personally keeps the difference, so in essence you are giving money indirectly to Jeff Bezos (if you live in Seattle or an area with a large Amazon fuffilment center).

This is on top of his company getting huge tax breaks/stipends/write offs for opening large job centers in specific areas (for example, Amazon will recieve $1,500,000,000 in incentives from the state of NY for their "second headquarters" being located there, plus other incentives and a fair amount of those NY workers will be on SNAP/welfare/whatever as a very small portion of the expected 50,000 jobs will be high level executives AND they're getting another $500,000,000 from Virginia as well).

Corporate welfare really does need to end but it's unlikely as some of this money makes it way back to the politicians and a common sense person would realize that if you taxed Jeff Bezos at 70% (over 10mil, which he would make in 10 hours on Jan 1st) instead of whatever bracket he is at (30%?) that Jeff Bezos would simply move to a place that doesn't tax him as hard (in reality or on paper), which means America is getting 0% of a higher number instead of 30% of a lower number. It also means that it's less likely he would create jobs here when Amazon is international and where the corporate headquarters is located is largely immaterial for them.

But it is a real problem, her solution is just insane.

Jeff Bezos does not make welfare/snap/government assistance laws, nor does he make minimum wage laws.

The tax breaks are fucked, and should be made illegal, because it gives large corporations such an unfair advantage, plus it screws over the morons who basically pay the company to operate in their area tax free. But again, Jeff Bezos does not have authority to issue tax breaks to himself. And none of that is the government giving him billions of dollars, that is a billionaire using existing policy that any other person can use. It's the policy that's the problem.

It's the state stealing from you, not the billionaires, and they give it to all sorts of random idiots, not just billionaires. The billionaires are the ones to look at to decide if some policy should change, because the magnitude makes small problems more visible, but they're just playing the game, they didn't make the rules.

 

[Tanner Glass]

Jeff Bezos does not make welfare/snap/government assistance laws, nor does he make minimum wage laws.

The tax breaks are fucked, and should be made illegal, because it gives large corporations such an unfair advantage, plus it screws over the morons who basically pay the company to operate in their area tax free. But again, Jeff Bezos does not have authority to issue tax breaks to himself. And none of that is the government giving him billions of dollars, that is a billionaire using existing policy that any other person can use. It's the policy that's the problem.

It's the state stealing from you, not the billionaires, and they give it to all sorts of random idiots, not just billionaires. The billionaires are the ones to look at to decide if some policy should change, because the magnitude makes small problems more visible, but they're just playing the game, they didn't make the rules.

That's all well and good, but it is entirely within Jeff Bezos power to pay his employees enough to a point where they don't qualify for welfare programs. If you work in seattle (Amazon's HQ) as a warehouse worker (~35k/year) and marry another warehouse worker (35k/year) you would still be considered at or near low-income in the area you live in. If you (god forbid) are single in that job you'd be flirting with the "Extremely low income" bracket for the area you live in.

I get it, the government is complicit but are we really suggesting corporations aren't helping them be complicit (via legal and illegal means) and that Jeff Bezos is laying awake at night wishing there was something he could do? If he invested part of the profits back into the Seattle office for a single month he could give every single worker a $16,200/year raise just out of his $27,000,000/day figure.

If you simply search "Amazon pushes back on law" you'll get a bunch of results where they directly influence lawmaking policy. The most recent one I'm aware of is here.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/12/seattle-repeals-tax-law-after-amazon-pressure.html - Seattle was trying to raise more money for their homeless program (which is a big surprise in a town with mega corporations controlling most jobs and those jobs all being near poverty level) and would have increased taxes on Amazon by nearly $14,000,000 a year (275 * 50,000). That $14,000,000 a year to solve a problem that Amazon had a hand in creating and represents what the CEO makes in half of one day. They threw their weight behind it and boom, it's gone now. They do this in other areas as well (for employee rights and sales taxes).

The corporations do it because they can get away with it, but certainly not because they have to do it to survive.

 

[Smaug's Smokey Hole]

Corporate welfare really does need to end but it's unlikely as some of this money makes it way back to the politicians and a common sense person would realize that if you taxed Jeff Bezos at 70% (over 10mil, which he would make in 10 hours on Jan 1st) instead of whatever bracket he is at (30%?) that Jeff Bezos would simply move to a place that doesn't tax him as hard (in reality or on paper), which means America is getting 0% of a higher number instead of 30% of a lower number. It also means that it's less likely he would create jobs here when Amazon is international and where the corporate headquarters is located is largely immaterial for them.

That's the crux of the "no borders"/globalization shit they've gotten themselves into. Free travel and movement and trade, of what exactly? People with money can and will move that money, they will also be able to spend time in the country they moved from as a taxable citizen. Same with their corporations, they can move and do business in the country they left. A railway worker in Albany can't move though, bunch of people from Guatemala can move though, and they will (best case scenario) try to compete for the job of railway worker in Albany, or Amazon stock worker, dumping the salaries.

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

That's all well and good, but it is entirely within Jeff Bezos power to pay his employees enough to a point where they don't qualify for welfare programs. If you work in seattle (Amazon's HQ) as a warehouse worker (~35k/year) and marry another warehouse worker (35k/year) you would still be considered at or near low-income in the area you live in. If you (god forbid) are single in that job you'd be flirting with the "Extremely low income" bracket for the area you live in.

I get it, the government is complicit but are we really suggesting corporations aren't helping them be complicit (via legal and illegal means) and that Jeff Bezos is laying awake at night wishing there was something he could do? If he invested part of the profits back into the Seattle office for a single month he could give every single worker a $16,200/year raise just out of his $27,000,000/day figure.

If you simply search "Amazon pushes back on law" you'll get a bunch of results where they directly influence lawmaking policy. The most recent one I'm aware of is here.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/12/seattle-repeals-tax-law-after-amazon-pressure.html - Seattle was trying to raise more money for their homeless program (which is a big surprise in a town with mega corporations controlling most jobs and those jobs all being near poverty level) and would have increased taxes on Amazon by nearly $14,000,000 a year (275 * 50,000). That $14,000,000 a year to solve a problem that Amazon had a hand in creating and represents what the CEO makes in half of one day. They threw their weight behind it and boom, it's gone now. They do this in other areas as well (for employee rights and sales taxes).

The corporations do it because they can get away with it, but certainly not because they have to do it to survive.

OK, that's all nice. Bill gates could make me a millionaire overnight if he wanted to. Plenty of people and corporations lobby for different rules and regulations. You keep bringing up how much money the CEO makes as if that's in any way relevant. So if he was terrible at business, and paid his employees exactly the same, but made no money himself, that would be better? Or if he paid his employees more, but also made more money himself, would that be bad?

Of course they influence policy, just like every corporation. If your senator or congress person gives amazon huge tax breaks, do not vote them back in. Push to eliminate tax breaks for large companies, as it's a lose-lose across the board for everyone except the companies themselves.

Or, you could just not change any laws but complain people are too rich, and insinuate the government needs to do something about those too rich people. I don't know how taxing Bezos at 150% would help his workers who don't make enough money. In fact, I could imagine if half his pay were taxed away, he might find ways to cut costs to get some of it back. Such as paying workers less.

Corporations aren't charities. They are trying to make money, and they have to play by the rules we set. If they break the rules, they should be punished. If they follow the rules and we don't like the outcome, we need to change the rules, not blame the people playing the game.

 

[Tanner Glass]

Or, you could just not change any laws but complain people are too rich, and insinuate the government needs to do something about those too rich people. I don't know how taxing Bezos at 150% would help his workers who don't make enough money. In fact, I could imagine if half his pay were taxed away, he might find ways to cut costs to get some of it back. Such as paying workers less.

Corporations aren't charities. They are trying to make money, and they have to play by the rules we set. If they break the rules, they should be punished. If they follow the rules and we don't like the outcome, we need to change the rules, not blame the people playing the game.

Increasing taxes on Bezos wouldn't help at all, was my point. I'm just pointing out that the idea of "the government isn't giving money to corporations" is actually not true and Jeff Bezos makes huge stacks of cash from the remarkably shitty system we have in place and his company has a direct hand in making it that way and keeping it that way.

I don't expect corporation to be charities and I entirely understand that Jeff Bezos would lock his employees in electrified cages for their entire shift if would make him or his company more money; but to think of the impact his company has had in the areas they operate out of and think "this is a good, sustainable thing they're doing here" is insane. Th idea that changing who you vote for matters is equally insane (doubly so in a place that's 80% democrat). Even if you voted in someone else (of which you can only try every few years and is unlikely at that) you would have to hope that they aren't already bought by the Amazon Corporation.

To paint Jeff Bezos as a victim in this is crazy to me - the idea that he's just benefiting from the system and not actively shaping it with his tremendous power, wealth, and influence is bananas. The other idea that the people have the ability to change the system by voting and leaving their fate in the hands of whatever shit candidate the Seattle Democratic Party shits out is insane - especially in the light of Seattle just recently being bullied out of a tax hike by Amazon.

I think you and I agree more than disagree (and it'll be my last derail) but Jeff Bezos absolutely has more power than any person (and largely and collective of people) when it comes to controlling how business is run in Seattle and has a direct and personal reason to keep the system stacked in his own favor. The only people in the same conversation as him would be people in similar situations (Starbucks CEO, Nintendo of America CEO, etc) and not politicians or people who simply live in Seattle.

 

[Your Weird Fetish]

That's all well and good, but it is entirely within Jeff Bezos power to pay his employees enough to a point where they don't qualify for welfare programs. If you work in seattle (Amazon's HQ) as a warehouse worker (~35k/year) and marry another warehouse worker (35k/year) you would still be considered at or near low-income in the area you live in. If you (god forbid) are single in that job you'd be flirting with the "Extremely low income" bracket for the area you live in.

I get it, the government is complicit but are we really suggesting corporations aren't helping them be complicit (via legal and illegal means) and that Jeff Bezos is laying awake at night wishing there was something he could do? If he invested part of the profits back into the Seattle office for a single month he could give every single worker a $16,200/year raise just out of his $27,000,000/day figure.

If you simply search "Amazon pushes back on law" you'll get a bunch of results where they directly influence lawmaking policy. The most recent one I'm aware of is here.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/12/seattle-repeals-tax-law-after-amazon-pressure.html - Seattle was trying to raise more money for their homeless program (which is a big surprise in a town with mega corporations controlling most jobs and those jobs all being near poverty level) and would have increased taxes on Amazon by nearly $14,000,000 a year (275 * 50,000). That $14,000,000 a year to solve a problem that Amazon had a hand in creating and represents what the CEO makes in half of one day. They threw their weight behind it and boom, it's gone now. They do this in other areas as well (for employee rights and sales taxes).

The corporations do it because they can get away with it, but certainly not because they have to do it to survive.

Give government interventionary powers and this is inevitably what will come of it. Opportunities to game the system. Socialist polices are the best friend of certain corporations even as it fucks over all their rivals.

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

Give government interventionary powers and this is inevitably what will come of it. Opportunities to game the system. Socialist polices are the best friend of certain corporations even as it fucks over all their rivals.

Yeah, exactly. We need the government giving equal treatment to companies, not special treatment to huge ones. Democrats seem to like giving out those tax breaks just as much as republicans.

Here's the issue. Claiming the government gave bezos the money means maybe they have the authority to take it away. That's not what happened. Bezos, using existing laws, and legally lobbying for other laws to be changed, has made lots of money in his private enterprise. In doing so, he's exposed that the current rules kind of suck. But nevertheless, he earned that money and the government has no claim on it.

Like you say, he'd have his employees locked in cages and worked to death if he'd make more money. That's why the government needs to set the rules. We cannot vote on what Bezos does. We can vote on people actually in the government who make the shitty rules. You could tax all his money away, it doesn't prevent the next guy from doing the exact same thing.

 

[Medicated]

Corporate welfare really does need to end but it's unlikely as some of this money makes it way back to the politicians and a common sense person would realize that if you taxed Jeff Bezos at 70% (over 10mil, which he would make in 10 hours on Jan 1st) instead of whatever bracket he is at (30%?) that Jeff Bezos would simply move to a place that doesn't tax him as hard (in reality or on paper), which means America is getting 0% of a higher number instead of 30% of a lower number. It also means that it's less likely he would create jobs here when Amazon is international and where the corporate headquarters is located is largely immaterial for them.

But it is a real problem, her solution is just insane.

Yeah I don't think it's really corporate welfare, thanks to globalism, governments have to bribe companies to stay away from India/Pakistan/Thailand/China etc...

It's an employers market at every angle, workers are slamming on their doors for peanuts, and governments and shoving money through the mailslot to get them to stay.

 

[Your Weird Fetish]

It's an employers market at every angle,

Not in lots of places in the US right now.

 

[Sweet and Savoury]

WoW she got named to the House Oversight Committee as well today.

A 1st term'er who got less then 80K votes in a 1 million pop district is now on the major committee of the house.

Who ever is pulling the strings must think this bimbo is the next Obama

Please democrats, please make Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez your new poster girl!

Please do this! I promise you it wont ever ever ever possibly backfire on you!

 

[millais]

WoW she got named to the House Oversight Committee as well today.

A 1st term'er who got less then 80K votes in a 1 million pop district is now on the major committee of the house.

Who ever is pulling the strings must think this bimbo is the next Obama

Please democrats, please make Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez your new poster girl!

Please do this! I promise you it wont ever ever ever possibly backfire on you!

Huh... so they are really putting her on the fast track for big things. I would have thought the Democrat establishment try to keep her out of trouble for a term or two until she can learn the ropes and how Congressional politicking really works, but I guess they are deciding her type is the way of the future.

 

[Marco Fucko]

I don't get the hubub over 30-something latina Bernie Sanders, especially trying to forecast a Presidential run.
Did she win her district? Well yeah but it's not hard for a hispanic socialist to win a half hispanic district with $50k median income in NYC.

She hasn't even introduced or voted anything yet, has she? It's all marketing bs.

 

[XYZpdq]

It's all marketing bs.

It worked for obeme.

 

[Sissy Galvez]

I don't get the hubub over 30-something latina Bernie Sanders, especially trying to forecast a Presidential run.
Did she win her district? Well yeah but it's not hard for a hispanic socialist to win a half hispanic district with $50k median income in NYC.

She hasn't even introduced or voted anything yet, has she? It's all marketing bs.

Dems are blowing their wads, she has years to go before she’s eligible to run. By then, people will have moved on.

 

[Dracula's Spirit Animal]

Huh... so they are really putting her on the fast track for big things. I would have thought the Democrat establishment try to keep her out of trouble for a term or two until she can learn the ropes and how Congressional politicking really works, but I guess they are deciding her type is the way of the future.

I think they misunderstand why Trump is successful, and think: "America loves brash and inexperienced." I doubt it is much deeper than that tbh.