Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
swordfish

Alexandria Ocasoi-Cortez - Needs her own thread.....

Recommended Posts

As for your bleeding heart, throwaway statistic of 40 million "hungry" Americans:  https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/09/08/usda-hunger-charade-food-insecurity-column/71880492/

Quote

The Agriculture Department announced this morning that 48 million Americans live in "food insecure" households. Soon you’ll hear we’re suffering an epidemic of hunger. While the federal government is already feeding more than 100 million Americans, we’ll be told that it just isn’t enough.

But it isn’t true. “Food insecurity” is a statistic designed to mislead. USDA defines food insecurity as being “uncertain of having, or unable to acquire, enough food to meet the needs of all their members because they had insufficient money or other resources for food.”  USDA noted: “For most food-insecure households, the inadequacies were in the form of reduced quality and variety rather than insufficient quantity.”

The definition of “food insecure” includes anyone who frets about not being able to purchase food at any point. If someone states that they feared running out of food for a single day (but didn’t run out), that is an indicator of being “food insecure” for the entire year regardless of whether they ever missed a single meal. If someone wants organic kale but can afford only conventional kale, that is another “food insecure” indicator.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine have criticized USDAfor how these statistics are contorted from a measure of household "security" into a misleading estimate that millions of individuals go hungry. After the 2009 USDA food security report was released, President Obama announced that “hunger rose significantly last year. ... My administration is committed to reversing the trend of rising hunger." The latest report will likely be heavily exploited  by Democratic presidential candidates and others who see a chance to burnish their benevolent image. (Sen. Bernie Sanders has claimed that “hunger is at an all-time high.”)

Private nonprofit organizations exploit USDA statistics to create a crisis atmosphere. Feeding America proclaimed September as Hunger Action Month, encouraging people to “take selfies while balancing orange spoons on their noses and sharing the photos, tagging their friends and challenging them to participate and raise awareness.” The North Carolina governor’s executive mansion was lit up with orangelast week to promote Hunger Action Month.

USDA food security reports, by creating the illusion of a national hunger epidemic, have helped propel a vast increase in federal food aid in recent years. But that has been a dietary disaster across the land. A Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics study concluded that “food insecure” adults are far more likely to be obese than “food secure” adults — indicating that a shortage of food is not the real health problem. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, “seven times as many (low-income) children are obese as are underweight.” President Obama proclaimed September as National Childhood Obesity Awareness Month.

Most federal food aid is poorly targeted to boost nutrition. Forty percent of food-stamp recipients are obese. And food-stamp recipients are far more likely to be obese than low-income Americans not on food stamps. A 2014 Stanford University study concluded that prohibiting the use of food stamps for sugary drinks would prevent 141,000 kids from becoming fat and save a quarter million adults from Type 2 diabetes, but the Obama administration fiercely resists any constraints on how food stamps are spent. When food stamps are distributed on weekends, recipients purchase up to 7% more beer during the month (even though beer is not covered by the stamps), according to a recent National Bureau of Economic Research report.

The insecurity = hunger switcheroo  is also fueling campaigns to compel schools to give free breakfasts to all kids after school starts each day. An American Journal of Public Health study warned that such programs “may contribute to excess calorie intake;” the survey found that more than half of all kids participating in such programs eat twice in the morning. USDA’s nationwide 2012 School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study found that the average elementary school breakfast provided almost all of children’s daily recommended calories from solid fats and added sugars. Donuts continue to be a popular item on school breakfast menus.

Some Americans are going hungry but USDA has never attempted to create an accurate gauge to measure actual hunger. Instead, citizens are supposed to be satisfied with federal reports that are little more than a subsidy for political grandstanding. Unfortunately, bogus numbers rarely spawn good policies.

At Wal-Mart last night they were out of organic bananas, so I had to purchase the non-organic bananas.  According to the U.S. government that is "food insecurity."  Guess I'm now a statistic.  Where is my free stuff?

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

https://www.chicksonright.com/youngconservatives/2019/03/21/ocasio-cortez-is-outraged-fox-news-is-calling-her-a-stereotypical-hispanic-name-2/?fbclid=IwAR1k_xxfZLibfq46YmGDeg9lBrabMiBo-S4ct5s8Q9U8XbqSwM33gVpwgFk

Democrat Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez took to social media on Wednesday evening to flip out on Fox News. She alleged the network hosts were conspiratorially saying her last name wrong in order to scare some of their viewers.

The New York Democrat said in a series of tweets that Fox News hosts like Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity were saying only “Cortez” because “that sounds more stereotypically Hispanic and probably incites more anxiety for” viewers.

“Pro Tip,” she also said in the tweets. “My last name is not ‘Cortez,’ just as theirs isn’t ‘Ingra’ or ‘Carl’ or ‘Hann.’”

 

9 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

As for your bleeding heart, throwaway statistic of 40 million "hungry" Americans:  https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/09/08/usda-hunger-charade-food-insecurity-column/71880492/

At Wal-Mart last night they were out of organic bananas, so I had to purchase the non-organic bananas.  According to the U.S. government that is "food insecurity."  Guess I'm now a statistic.  Where is my free stuff?

FYI - all bananas (that grow on a tree) are "organic"......

Edited by swordfish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, swordfish said:

FYI - all bananas (that grow on a tree) are "organic"......

Oh man,  you mean I'm being ripped of by paying about an extra 30 cents a pound for really no difference?  Where is government to stop this injustice?

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Oh man,  you mean I'm being ripped of by paying about an extra 30 cents a pound for really no difference?  Where is government to stop this injustice?

 

Not really Muda.......anything that is grown is by definition organic.......What you are wanting is probably something that you can feel reasonably assured is grown either pesticide-free or non-GMO, or some other "pure/natural" methodology......

Had this discussion 2 years ago at a Christmas party with a federal USDA inspector who was auditing the processes at my wife's company (a poultry company) to ensure they meet the requirements of the "level" of purity from hatch to grow-out to be able to put the "organic" label on the food they grow, slaughter and package.......In other words, it's all organic, it just has to meet certain requirements to be labeled organic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, swordfish said:

Not really Muda.......anything that is grown is by definition organic.......What you are wanting is probably something that you can feel reasonably assured is grown either pesticide-free or non-GMO, or some other "pure/natural" methodology......

Had this discussion 2 years ago at a Christmas party with a federal USDA inspector who was auditing the processes at my wife's company (a poultry company) to ensure they meet the requirements of the "level" of purity from hatch to grow-out to be able to put the "organic" label on the food they grow, slaughter and package.......In other words, it's all organic, it just has to meet certain requirements to be labeled organic.

Then why doesn't the label just say "organic" and not "pesticide-free", "non-GMO",  "pure", etc.?  Oh wait, it's government controlled.  Just answered my own question........

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Then why doesn't the label just say "organic" and not "pesticide-free", "non-GMO",  "pure", etc.?  Oh wait, it's government controlled.  Just answered my own question........

 

Oh it was enlightening.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ocasio-Cortez Calls For Radical Gun Ban, Champions Confiscation: https://www.dailywire.com/news/44971/ocasio-cortez-calls-radical-gun-ban-champions-ryan-saavedra

Quote

Democratic socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) called for banning all semi-automatic firearms on Thursday night after championing New Zealand's radical new gun control measures, which includes government confiscation of nearly all semi-automatic firearms.

The 29-year-old congresswoman tweeted on Wednesday: "Sandy Hook happened 6 years ago and we can’t even get the Senate to hold a vote on universal background checks w/ #HR8. Christchurch happened, and within days New Zealand acted to get weapons of war out of the consumer market."

Included in that tweet was a video of liberal New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announcing the new gun control laws.

"This is what leadership looks like," Ocasio-Cortez added.

Ardern specifically stated in that speech that the government was going to be confiscating firearms from law abiding citizens. Arden said:

In the meantime, we are asking all current holders of military-style semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles to visit www.police.govt.nz. There they will find details of the weapons included in this ban. In the next 48 hours, a form will be available on this site that we are asking these gun owners to complete, identifying what banned guns they hold. The police will then arrange for these weapons to be handed over, and eventually destroyed. Details of the weapons handed back by owners that are covered by the ban will also be taken to ensure that fair and reasonable compensation is paid once the buyback is in place. If owners are unable to complete the online form, they are able to contact the police on the phone to arrange the handover of these now-banned guns...

...As the legislation is developed, we will determine the time available for the return of military-style semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles, and the duration of the buyback scheme. I can assure people that there will be time for the returns to be made, and that they will not be criminalized overnight. After a reasonable period for returns, those who continue to possess these guns will be in contravention of the law. Currently, the penalties for this range from fines of up to $4,000 and or three years in prison. The draft legislation will look to increase these penalties.

On Thursday night, Ocasio-Cortez flat out called for banning all semi-automatic firearms, which would include handguns, and called for banning bump stocks and high capacity magazines.

Quote

You know, instead of training children, teachers, houses of faith, & concertgoers to prep for being shot, we could just:

-Pass Universal Background checks (#HR8!)
-Disarm domestic abusers
-Mandate safe storage
-Ban bump stocks, semiautos, & high cap mags designed to kill people https://t.co/5SaLxEfYBT

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) March 22, 2019

People with violent criminal records are already prohibited from owning and possessing firearms and bump stocks have already been banned.

...

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Muda69 said:

Share all you want foxbat, just don't use the force of government to compel others to do that same.  

You mean like this?  

Image result for school girl integration national guard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, foxbat said:

You mean like this?  

Image result for school girl integration national guard

?  Please explain the exact government compulsion(s) taking effect in this photo.

 

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

?  Please explain the exact government compulsion(s) taking effect in this photo.

 

 

Clearly you aren't that isolated.

4 hours ago, Muda69 said:

As for your bleeding heart, throwaway statistic of 40 million "hungry" Americans:  https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/09/08/usda-hunger-charade-food-insecurity-column/71880492/

At Wal-Mart last night they were out of organic bananas, so I had to purchase the non-organic bananas.  According to the U.S. government that is "food insecurity."  Guess I'm now a statistic.  Where is my free stuff?

So as to the other issues of education, employment, housing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, foxbat said:

Clearly you aren't that isolated.

So as to the other issues of education, employment, housing?

No, but I want to read the answer in your eloquent words.

What about these other issues?  You know my stance, government has no business regulating or providing resources in those areas.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

No, but I want to read the answer in your eloquent words.

What about these other issues?  You know my stance, government has no business regulating or providing resources in those areas.

 

My "sharing," as I posted before, isn't quite as limited as your your take on it.  As with the picture, those government troops weren't "sharing" by giving, they were providing access to potential prosperity.  Similarly, in those other areas, I'm not talking about aid in those areas, but providing access; especially equal access.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, foxbat said:

My "sharing," as I posted before, isn't quite as limited as your your take on it.  As with the picture, those government troops weren't "sharing" by giving, they were providing access to potential prosperity.  Similarly, in those other areas, I'm not talking about aid in those areas, but providing access; especially equal access.

It is not the job of government to provide equal access.   

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/the-resegregation-myth/

 

Quote

The era of federally engineered school integration is coming to a close.

In the wake of Brown v. Board of Education, and in the face of a horrific racial caste system, federal courts took control of hundreds of school districts, primarily in the South. The courts not only took aim at legally enforced segregation, but redrew school-attendance boundary lines and often mandated that students be bused far from home to attend an integrated school. By the 1970s, schools in the South were more integrated than those in the North.

Since the 1990s and especially the 2000s, however, courts have been turning matters back over to local governments. More than half of the orders are gone; many more are no longer being actively monitored. It is still illegal for these governments to segregate their schools on purpose, of course, and some agreed to continue certain integration policies as a condition of regaining control. But in general, they are free once again to give each neighborhood its own school and leave it at that, and many have done so. Schools in these particular jurisdictions are, unsurprisingly, less integrated than they were when the federal government forced them to achieve a more even racial balance.

But contrary to a popular liberal narrative of nationwide resegregation, this has merely balanced out a fortunate (and mostly unengineered) trend of residential integration, leaving American schoolchildren writ large no more segregated than they were a couple of decades back — and roughly as segregated in schools as they are in their neighborhoods. This bodes well for the future. Assuming neighborhoods continue to integrate, schools will become increasingly integrated as well once desegregation orders are fully left in the past and their steady elimination no longer cancels out gains within neighborhoods.

In other words, we are — however slowly — integrating ourselves voluntarily and leaving a system of forced integration behind. The former development is one to be proud of, even as we still struggle to overcome our history and ensure that all children have access to a decent education. And the latter was inevitable, given our federalist system and the legally dubious nature of basing children’s school assignments on the color of their skin. In terms of policy, the future lies in empowering families to make the best decisions for their kids — and letting the benefits of integration flow from there — rather than in deliberately setting each school’s demographic profile through the brute force of government.

As of 1988, according to the University of California–Los Angeles Civil Rights Project, 44 percent of black children in the South attended majority-white schools. By 2011 that had fallen to 23 percent — and there’s a similar trend in the nationwide data. These and similar statistics are often deployed to support the notion that schools are resegregating. A recent piece in Vox, for instance, presented the Civil Rights Project’s numbers as a reason that school districts should start “gerrymandering” their attendance zones to integrate schools.

...

How did school segregation hold steady despite the end of so many desegregation orders? The answer is that residential segregation fell, progress that carried over to schools by virtue of the simple fact that most children go to school based on where they live. To perfectly integrate whites and blacks in 1980, you would have needed to move more than 60 percent of blacks to new neighborhoods, according to work by the Brookings Institution demographer William Frey. By 2000 that figure declined to about 50 percent, and it fell still further by 2010.

Frey writes:

One of the trends spurring this shift is the continued integration of southern communities that are magnets for both blacks and whites. . . . In the North, black population losses in cities, the destruction of large public housing projects, and increased suburbanization of blacks are contributing to declines in segregation.

Another impetus toward less segregation is the growth of the Hispanic and Asian populations. Although all minority groups still show a preference for members of their own group as neighbors, tolerance for other groups is strongest in settings that are already multiracial. . . . The 2010 census shows that some of the lowest black-white segregation scores are in areas with large or growing new minority populations.

Frey has also drawn attention to a growing pattern of intermarriage. Today about a seventh of newlywed couples are interracial.

It’s a long way to a society that mixes freely, but we are unambiguously headed in that direction, and our progress has staved off the school resegregation about which so many on the left fret.

...

To abandon the project of government-engineered racial balancing, then, is not to abandon the quest to ensure that all children have access to good schools. Indeed, it is not even to abandon the goal of integration. Americans of different races are, of their own volition, living side by side more and more as time goes on. And we can coax this trend along by helping people achieve their preferences, rather than by overriding those preferences.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

It is not the job of government to provide equal access.   

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/the-resegregation-myth/

 

 

I'm not talking about forced integration.  I'm talking about making sure that there isn't an impediment to integration ... and there's a very distinct difference.  There's a very distinct difference between having an environment where integration or access to facilities is made available vs. balancing racial mixes.  There's a very distinct difference between making a school integrate by busing and making sure that a kid who wants to attend a public school who lives in that district can attend it without impediment, harassment, etc.  or, even outside of that district, should that be allowed by the district like when open enrollment applies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, foxbat said:

I'm not talking about forced integration.  I'm talking about making sure that there isn't an impediment to integration ... and there's a very distinct difference.  There's a very distinct difference between having an environment where integration or access to facilities is made available vs. balancing racial mixes.  There's a very distinct difference between making a school integrate by busing and making sure that a kid who wants to attend a public school who lives in that district can attend it without impediment, harassment, etc.  or, even outside of that district, should that be allowed by the district like when open enrollment applies.

No, I don't believe it is the governments job to "balance racial mixes." 

Now if you are talking about a child being agressed against while on their way to or from the government school, then yes, government has a valid role in that.  Should that occur the individual(s) responsible should be arrested and charged accordingly.  Can you please link to stories where such impediment, harassment, etc. is occurring here in Indiana today?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Muda69 said:

No, I don't believe it is the governments job to "balance racial mixes." 

Now if you are talking about a child being agressed against while on their way to or from the government school, then yes, government has a valid role in that.  Should that occur the individual(s) responsible should be arrested and charged accordingly.  Can you please link to stories where such impediment, harassment, etc. is occurring here in Indiana today?

 

 

None of my posts have indicated that I am in favor of balancing either.  Matter of fact, I'm pretty sure in the previous quote that I specifically stated that there's a difference between using government resources to allow access vs. balancing.  Just a couple from two different side of the spectrum, but I'm pretty sure you already knew this.

https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/local-education/lebanon-schools-pay-150-000-settle-racial-discrimination-case/LkyN5pCuMeKYOdNfPCJsaO/

https://nypost.com/2018/05/25/school-officials-discriminated-against-white-coaches-suit/

https://www.essence.com/news/indiana-high-school-girls-told-by-racist-bully-they-would-be-sold-into-slavery/

 

Here's another one linking back to hunger issues and racism too.

https://www.thenation.com/article/hunger-food-insecurity-racism-mariana-chilton/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, foxbat said:

Matter of fact, I'm pretty sure in the previous quote that I specifically stated that there's a difference between using government resources to allow access vs. balancing.  Just a couple from two different side of the spectrum, but I'm pretty sure you already knew this.

 

I don't understand.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2019 at 8:37 AM, swordfish said:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/ocasio-cortez-flubs-history-fdr-change-to-constitution

She must be upsetting the leaders of the left when the MSM is actually pointing out her flubs........

 

 

 

https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-attacked-twitter-constitutional-mistake-was-she-1381693

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, swordfish said:

"They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure Roosevelt did not get reelected," 

You really want to defend that statement?  :classic_wacko:

That Newsweek article is nothing but spin.   I thought words mattered?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, swordfish said:

"They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure Roosevelt did not get reelected," 

You really want to defend that statement?  :classic_wacko:

I'm not defending whether it was amended at the time or what her understanding of it was.  That amendment has Roosevelt written all over it and it was the timing of the adoption being the only thing that separated whether it actually happened from whether it did.  Look at the history of that amendment and its timing.  It wasn't something, like the 25th, that took on different meaning/significance based on Kennedy's assassination or that lingered in flux with Garfield's assassination and Wilson's disabled state. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Capital is a Mystery to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: https://mises.org/wire/capital-mystery-alexandria-ocasio-cortez

Quote

We all know that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is dominating the political news with her demands for socializing the economy. Bob Murphy has explained that her Green New Deal “makes no sense on economic grounds” and even for Keynesians it “ would be nonsensical to implement such a program today.” Given the inanity of the Green New Deal, I would like to propose a course of study for Ocasio-Cortez.

While Ocasio-Cortez has a degree in economics, she apparently never learned the lessons stressed by Hernando de Soto in his The Mystery of Capital. The country would be better off if AOC and politicians of all stripes understood and took to heart de Soto’s warnings.

“People who have adapted every other Western invention, from the paper clip to the nuclear reactor, have not been able to produce sufficient capital to make their domestic capitalism work.” This, according to de Soto, is the mystery of capital.

De Soto argues that “capital, the most essential component of Western economic advance, is the one that has received the least attention” and shows that the major barrier to the production of capital is the lack of private property rights in struggling countries. Socialism, particularly the extreme proposals from Ocasio-Cortez, undermine and in some cases completely eliminate private property. De Soto provides us with a mainly historical argument showing that adopting socialist proposals will destroy the capital producing engine that powers the U.S. economy.

Westerners, de Soto points out, take this capital producing “mechanism so completely for granted that they have lost all awareness of its existence.”

De Soto’s fear is that if we don’t understand the importance of private property in producing the capital necessary for our increasing standards of living then “the West might damage the source of its own strength. Being clear about the source of capital will also prepare the West to protect itself and the rest of the world as soon as the prosperity of the moment yields to the crisis that is sure to come.”

The Green New Deal could be such a crisis.

In his book, after explaining five mysteries of capital: The Mystery of Missing Information, The Mystery of Capital, The Mystery of Political Awareness, The Missing Lessons of U.S. History, and the Mystery of Legal Failure: Why Property Law Does Not Work, de Soto again emphasizes the importance of private property rights and concludes that the problem in underdeveloped countries is that “most people cannot participate in an expanded market because they do not have access to a legal property rights system that represents their assets in a manner that makes them widely transferable and fungible, that allows them to be encumbered and permits their owners to be held accountable.”

De Soto also adopts a Misesian view of the importance of the capitalist entrepreneur in economic development, citing “the arduous achievements of those small entrepreneurs who have triumphed over every imaginable obstacle to create the greater part of the wealth of their society.” These “heroic entrepreneurs” according to de Soto are “are not the problem. They are the solution” to global poverty.

De Soto warns us that if we forget the importance of having a system of property rights that generates privately held capital then we will destroy the capitalist basis of our economy.

We should take de Soto’s warning to heart. We must remember our history. We must provide an intellectual defense of private property and make the case against government depredations of our property that are proposed by AOC and her fellow travelers.

Finally, I would like to add that I am not completely endorsing de Soto’s book. Those of us who are accustomed to Ludwig von Mises’ analysis of the importance of capital and his systematic defense of private property will find, I suspect, that de Soto does not fully understand the role of savings in generating capital and does not go far enough in his defense of private property rights.

In just a few pages, Mises, in his “The Economic Role of Saving and Capital Goods1 demolishes the socialist criticisms of private capital. Mises explains that “What distinguishes contemporary life in the countries of Western civilization from condition as they prevailed in earlier ages… is the amount of capital accumulated.” And “What elevates the wage rates paid to the American workers above the rates paid in foreign countries is the fact that investment of capital per worker is higher in this country than abroad.” Mises concludes that the way to benefit workers is to refrain from imposing government policies that obstruct saving and capital accumulation.

De Soto focuses on the lack of capital in poorer countries. On this issue, I recommend Mises’ “The Plight of the Underdeveloped Nations.”2 Here, Mises provides us with an excellent analysis of the institutional problems in less developed countries. The countries are underdeveloped because “they had been slow in developing those ideological and institutional conditions which are the indispensable prerequisite of large scale capital accumulation.” What should underdeveloped nations do to “eradicate penury”? “They must resort to laissez faire; they must remove all obstacles fettering the spirit of enterprise and stunting domestic capital accumulation and the inflow of capital from abroad.”

If Ocasio Cortez and other socialists understood the lessons of de Soto and Mises they might be reluctant to support policies that destroy the basis of a thriving economy, private property rights and capital accumulation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...