Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
swordfish

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

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Howe said:

*Another Dice video*

Mr. Dice tends to be one of the last people to be producing a "reality" video.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sanders-Ocasio-Cortez Plan to Cap Credit Card Interest Rates Will Backfire on Consumers: https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/sanders-ocasio-cortez-plan-cap-credit-card-interest-rates-will-backfire

Quote

Senator Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently introduced their first joint piece of legislation — a proposal to impose a national interest-rate ceiling of 15% on all consumer credit products, from credit cards to payday loans. They promise that capping interest rates on credit cards and other consumer loans will benefit working families, but history indicates the benefit will come at the expense of everyone else — especially the half of all households who pay their balances every month.

The ubiquity of general purpose credit cards (such as Visa and MasterCard) for middle-class Americans is a relatively recent phenomenon. In 1970 only 16% of American households had general purpose credit cards, and only two percent of low-income households, primarily because restrictive interest-rate ceilings made it too risky to lend to all but the wealthiest Americans. Credit card issuers offset their inability to charge a market rate of interest by imposing annual fees or bundling credit cards with other products such as checking accounts (which carried higher monthly fees in states with more restrictive usury ceilings). But consumers hate annual fees, especially those who do not carry balances but were forced to subsidize those who do. Moreover, annual fees were highly regressive, as every consumer paid the same annual card fee regardless of whether they charged $3,000 or $30,000 a year. Annual fees also stifled competition as most consumers were willing to pay to carry only one card, at most.

America’s complicated credit history

Retailers, such as department and appliance stores, had a more effective way to evade interest rate ceilings — they simply marked-up the price of the goods they sold to offset losses from their credit operations. One study from the era found the price of goods typically financed (such as major appliances) was 3% to 8% higher in states with more restrictive usury ceilings than the identical products in neighboring states. Consumers, especially higher-risk ones, obtained much more of their credit from retailers (instead of banks) in states with stricter usury ceilings. The need for retailers to provide financing for customers provided a major competitive advantage to huge department store chains (such as Sears and JC Penney) that could better bear the cost and risk of extensive credit departments over smaller competitors. Meanwhile, cash customers paid inflated retail prices to subsidize below-cost financing to credit purchasers.

Those who needed credit for non-durable goods, such as medical bills or a car repair, were forced to rely on providers such as high-cost personal finance company loans or pawn shops, which were often regulated by a different set of regulations or could avoid interest-rate ceilings by reducing the price offered for pawned goods.

We need lenders of last resort

Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal would effectively outlaw these lenders of last resort too. History warns, however, that abolishing the supply of credit does not eliminate the demand. In states where usury ceilings eliminated alternative lenders, generations of desperate working-class families turned to illegal loan sharks that preyed on the urban working class for most of the Twentieth Century. So severe and chronic was the multi-billion dollar loan-sharking racket that eventually even consumer advocates and liberal politicians such as Robert Kennedy pleaded with state legislatures to raise or eliminate their interest rate ceilings so hard up families had legal choices.

The Supreme Court’s 1978 decision in “Marquette National Bank v. First of Omaha Services Corp. effectively deregulated credit card interest rates. Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, liberal icon Justice William Brennan held that the applicable usury ceiling for banks chartered under federal law (which includes virtually every large credit card issuer), would be the issuing bank’s state law, instead of the customer’s. Credit card operations quickly migrated to states such as South Dakota, which allows rates on most credit cards to be set by markets instead of politics.

Legislation would invite legbreakers

The effective elimination of usury ceilings transformed the credit card market, as many previously-excluded consumers gained access to credit cards for the first time. By 1998,almost 75% of American households had general purpose cards. Annual fees have largely disappeared on credit cards. Competition for customers is fierce: Most card-owning households have multiple cards and they say that it is easy to switch cards if dissatisfied. Rewards are now commonplace, even among subprime cardholders, but likely would disappear under the Sanders-AOC proposal. Breaking the link between department stores and credit provision has enabled small merchants to compete with big ones on equal footing. And, of course, widespread access to credit cards was the necessary condition for the e-commerce revolution.

Senator Sanders and Representative Ocasio-Cortez promise lower interest rates for those who revolve balances on their credit cards. They ignore the reality that those who are lucky enough to still have credit cards if their proposal was adopted would be forced to subsidize those who carry balances through higher annual fees, fewer rewards, more pawn shops, and even the return of legbreakers. Perhaps someday Washington will consider a “Protection from Politicians Who Promise to Help Us” Act.

Agreed.  The federal government needs to keeps it's long nose out of this.

 

  • Disdain 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reverse angle of AOC’s pictures where she was overcome with emotion because of children in cages shows she’s crying over a caged Ford truck....

Image may contain: one or more people and people sitting

  • Thanks 1
  • Kill me now 1

Share this post


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

Reverse angle of AOC’s pictures where she was overcome with emotion because of children in cages shows she’s crying over a caged Ford truck....

Image may contain: one or more people and people sitting

@Irishman?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/27/2019 at 10:24 AM, swordfish said:

Reverse angle of AOC’s pictures where she was overcome with emotion because of children in cages shows she’s crying over a caged Ford truck....

Image may contain: one or more people and people sitting

Dante, instead of the sit and spin vote toward SF, you should be facing a little reality when it comes to souls of politicians.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

Image result for chat room police

Given your history of challenging posts not being on a correct thread, not surprised you are showing us your badge.  Its is very nice!!  Congrats deputy!!

Is it ok when politicians from your chosen party get caught in deception?

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


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

Is it ok when politicians from your chosen party get caught in deception?

That's pretty funny coming from a Trump Groupie like yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

That's pretty funny coming from a Trump Groupie like yourself.

If a guy that supports smaller gov'ts with less control, anti-socialist views, not decaying the military, prevention of the slaughter of life in the womb, God still part of our country etc., then you call it want you want.  Lord knows, that is the exact opposite direction of your party.

You keep wearing that badge proudly Barney.....let me know in the future if I deviate from a thread theme.  Your oversight is so valued!!

 

Barney 2.jpg

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

Lord knows, that is the exact opposite direction of your party.

I'm a registered Republican.

 

17 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

You keep wearing that badge proudly Barney.....let me know in the future if I deviate from a thread theme.  Your oversight is so valued!!

I don't know about thread deviation, but I'll let you know when you're being a pompous jerk again. Shouldn't take long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, gonzoron said:

I'm a registered Republican.

 

I don't know about thread deviation, but I'll let you know when you're being a pompous jerk again. Shouldn't take long.

What someone is registered doesn't mean much.  My Dad was a registered Dem from the JFK days.He rarely voted that way after him.

When someone resorts to name calling, they may just need to look in the mirror.  

Have a nice 4th holiday....

 

 

Share this post


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

 

When someone resorts to name calling, they may just need to look in the mirror.  

 

 

 

I agree 100 percent Barney Fife

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

I agree 100 percent Barney Fife

After a label was placed with his badge post.....or did you forget that?

Share this post


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

After a label was placed with his badge post.....or did you forget that?

Consider yourself Trolled and Triggered.  

Happy 4th!

  • Like 1
  • Disdain 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2019 at 10:09 PM, BARRYOSAMA said:

Consider yourself Trolled and Triggered.  

Happy 4th!

Considered myself laughing....F for such a poor effort BO

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh come on guys!  That Ford Explorer is still in the parking lot behind the fence.......AOC is sooooo Heartbroken......

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-cortez-trump-usa-headed-fascism

After touring a migrant holding facility, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., warned about the direction of the country and blasted House Democrats and President Trump for their actions during the migrant crisis.

“Are we headed to fascism? Yes. I don’t think there’s a question,” Ocasio-Cortez reportedly told Yahoo News on Monday. Her comments harkened back to a controversial comparison she made between migrant facilities and "concentration camps" -- statements she refused to apologize for but which sparked considerable backlash from Republicans. She then repeated the comparison again on Tuesday evening.

Ocasio-Cortez has continually pummeled the administration for its treatment of migrants and insisted that they faced deplorable conditions under Trump.

“This is completely engineered by him,” she said of Trump and the humanitarian crisis at the border. The New Yorker cited how the U.S. withdrew aid to places that needed it.

“It deepened and exacerbated all of the crises that are already happening, causing a flood of people to try to escape these horrifying conditions," she said. "So we are contributing to the surge in the first place. We’re engineering it, so that’s coming to our border.”

I don't understand that statement - Does she think the current President worked with the former President (REMEMBER - whose administration actually built the facilities that are now overcrowded) to accomplish the current border crisis that everyone in the Democrat party (last year) said DIDN'T exist, but for some reason now claims it does exist worst than it has ever been......

Then you have AOC out there making statements like "They are forced to drink water out of the toilets".

Migrant facility toilets

https://www.businessinsider.com/photo-hybrid-toilet-drinking-fountain-cbp-centers-2019-7

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7207365/AOC-warns-slipping-Fascism-claiming-border-detainees-drinking-toilets.html

Ocasio-Cortez added: 'They were absolutely rude and they were absolutely talking back as though they had as much power as the oversight powers of Congress ... as though they were exempt from congressional oversight.'  

Therein lies the problem with this lady......She expected the outright laying down on the ground and kneeling in front of the mighty Congresswoman from New York and obeying her commands - Instead she got the working CBP officers who really didn't have time for her and her ilk, but who were definitely beneath her......

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Sued Over Blocking Twitter Followers https://www.npr.org/2019/07/12/741038121/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-is-sued-over-blocking-twitter-followers

Quote

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., is being sued by two people who say they criticized her on Twitter and were then blocked from her account, which has more than 4.7 million followers.

The two federal lawsuits were filed Tuesday, the same day a federal appeals court in New York upheld a lower court ruling that President Trump violated the First Amendment by blocking critics on Twitter. The three-judge panel's unanimous ruling said that because Trump uses his Twitter account as a public forum, he cannot bar people who disagree with him from taking part in an open dialogue.

The lawsuits against Ocasio-Cortez were filed by Dov Hikind, a former New York state assemblyman, and Joseph Saladino, a social media personality who goes by the name Joey Salads and is running for Congress.

...

Some New York Democrats voiced their support for Ocasio-Cortez. "Blocking people on social media — esp as women, typically subjected to an avalanche of hateful and misogynistic speech online — is not a violation of their First Amendment rights," said state Sen. Julia Salazar, D-Brooklyn. "None of us have a constitutional right to use someone's Twitter to abuse them."

Hikind said his criticism of Ocasio-Cortez focused on policy and never veered into vile territory. "This is about every elected official," he told NPR. "Just because you don't like what someone is saying, just because you can't deal with someone's criticism of your policy, 'I'll be deaf and dumb,' that's hopefully going to be history all over the country."

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


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

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Sued Over Blocking Twitter Followers https://www.npr.org/2019/07/12/741038121/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-is-sued-over-blocking-twitter-followers

 

I don't believe this is a 1st Amendment issue. Just because someone blocks you on social media does not silence you. 

My state rep and I are personal friends, we went to school together, and have been FB friends since before he was a state rep. I see how some of his threads degenerate. He gets hammered by bots, out of state fake accounts, etc. I rarely posts on his threads because of all the notifications and all the crap you have to wade thru. I also know he has blocked people. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abolish the Dept. of Homeland Security? Yes, Please.: https://mises.org/power-market/abolish-dept-homeland-security-yes-please

Quote

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has suggested eliminating the Department of Homeland Security.

Her motivation seems to be reducing federal immigration enforcement powers, although it doesn't necessarily follow that abolishing the DHS would actually accomplish this.

Nevertheless, the DHS is just yet an other cabinet level agency pushed to facilitate even more government spending, and has never been necessary. Its abolition would be a step in the right direction.

The thing about raising government agencies to cabinet-level status is that the move makes it easier for the bureaucrats in charge of the agencies to politically agitate for more government spending in their favor, and to push bigger government in general. It's no coincidence that as the US government has grown ever larger and more intrusive, so has the number of cabinet-level agencies. So now, we have the EPA, the SBA, and the departments of HUD, Energy, and Education all provided with more direct access to the president and the media. Everything they do is deemed "essential." Everything they do, we're told, is a matter of national importance.

DHS is no different. When the 9/11 attacks occurred, they exposed the sheer incompetence, laziness, and inefficiency of government security and defense organizations. Year after year, hundreds of billions of dollars were poured into these organizations — in addition to the countless billions spent on the Pentagon.  But when they were shown to be asleep at the switch, what happened? Rather than have their budgets cut, and senior officials fired in droves — as should have happened — George W. Bush and his cronies decided that what the federal government really needed was a new department into which billions more in taxpayer money could be poured.

The was politically important in the sense that making DHS a department made it easier to call for every more funding for its constituent agencies. But much of what the department does was already done before 9/11 — including immigration regulation.

What was new was the federalization of airport security, and new slush funds for domestic police departments.

In a 2017 article titled "Four Agencies to Abolish along with the Dept. of Education," I put DHS first on the list (followed by the EPA, Interior, and Agriculture):

One: The Department of Homeland Security, $51 Billion

Somehow, the United States managed to get along for more than 225 years before this Department was created by Congress and the Bush Administration in 2002.

The Department quickly became a way for the federal government to spread federal taxpayer dollars to state and local law enforcement agencies , thus gaining greater control at the local level. The DHS administers a number of grant programs that have helped to purchase a variety of new toys for law enforcement groups including new weapons, and new technologies. Also included in this is the infamous military surplus program which is supplies tanks and other military equipment to police forces everywhere from big cities to small rural towns. The crime-free town of Keene, New Hampshire made sure its police received a tank through this program as have many larger cities.

When the Orlando gunman opened fire in the Pulse nightclub in 2016, the police eventually rolled up in a tank— which did nothing to stem the bloodshed inside the club.

Police claim they need these half-million-dollar vehicles from the DHS to deal with civil unrest. Never mind, of course, that every state already has a National Guard forcespecifically for that purpose.

While the Department was created in response to the 9/11 attacks, the Department does nothing to address anything like a 9/11-style attack, and all the agencies that were supposed to provide intelligence on such attacks — the FBI for instance — already exist in other departments and continue to enjoy huge budgets.

DHS also includes agencies that already existed in other departments before, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the agencies that handle immigration and customs. Those agencies should either be returned to the departments they came from or be abolished.

And, few would miss the Transportation Security Administration — an agency that has never caught a single terrorist, but has smuggled at least $100 million worth of cocaine.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is usually wrong about pretty much everything. But on this she's accidentally correct: abolishing the DHS would be a net good for America. It was never necessary, and is mostly a channel for violating the rights of Americans through a de facto standing army of federal agencies and local cops pumped up on federal dollars and military equipment. Politicians in Washington DC would hate to see it go. But the taxpayers would likely benefit were it to disappear forever.

This is something I support.

 

  • Like 2
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2019 at 5:28 PM, TrojanDad said:

What someone is registered doesn't mean much.  My Dad was a registered Dem from the JFK days.He rarely voted that way after him.

Good for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ten Questions for the ‘Squad’: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/ten-questions-for-the-squad/

Quote

Democratic infighting reached a fever pitch last week with bickering and personal attacks between members of the “Squad” and other House Democrats. During that period, Squad members Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley mostly avoided doing interviews. However, that all changed after Donald Trump’s deplorable tweet thread aimed at the freshman members.

That attack united House Democrats in condemnation and redirected the press’s focus. As a result, those members have suddenly agreed to do interviews again. While it makes sense that those interviews cover the Trump attack, one would think the press would also ask these members some tough questions that have otherwise gone unanswered. That hasn’t happened thus far, but here are ten suggestions for journalists actually interested in accountability from those in power, including those with a D by their name:

Questions for all four members:

1) Given the attack this week against an ICE facility by an Antifa member who parroted some of the rhetoric used by your group about similar facilities, do you feel any responsibility to tone down that rhetoric?

2) The initial dispute with other Democrats originated from your voting against the House Democrats’ border-aid bill and the bipartisan compromise bill. Several of you have also promoted boycotts against furniture providers that work with detention facilities. How can you legitimately complain about the conditions at these facilities while opposing the aid and resources that officials say are needed to improve those conditions?

3) If you could fully control how we deal with the current influx of migrants from South America at the border, what would the process look like? Without detention facilities, what would you do with migrants who cross the border without proper documentation? How will you deal with those who do not show up to court and have deportation orders issued against them?

Questions for Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez:

4) Part of the recent infighting in the House caucus seems to be in reaction to tweets from your chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, suggesting that some of your colleagues were enabling racism with their immigration votes and comparable to southern segregationists in the ’40s. Do you agree with his comments? Do you still support Nancy Pelosi as the speaker of the House?

5) You have repeatedly defended comparing U.S. migrant-detention facilities to concentration camps and invoking the phrase “never again.” These Holocaust comparisons have led to condemnation from mainstream Jewish and Holocaust-remembrance groups, including the ADL, the U.S. Holocaust Museum, and Yad Vashem. Why do you feel that comparison is necessary despite concerns that you are diminishing the suffering of Holocaust victims?

Questions for Ilhan Omar:

6) The Minnesota Star Tribune recently did a story raising questions about your previous marriage. Documents appear to indicate that you filed joint tax returns with your current husband while you were still married to your previous husband, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi. Legal documents also show your current husband and your former husband claiming the same residence around the same time. Can you explain these discrepancies?

7) During the 2018 election, you denied complaints claiming you misused campaign funds, but the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board recently found you had misappropriated funds for your divorce attorney and travel expenses. Can you explain how that happened?

 8. Can you please explain why you believe sanctions against the Maduro regime in Venezuela are “bullying” and a form of “economic sabotage” against Venezuelans, but support the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement against Israel?

Questions for Rashida Tlaib:

9) A few months ago, pro-Israel group Stand With Us did an investigation looking at 18 individuals associated with you or your campaign. You have personally praised some of these individuals on Facebook for their work on your campaign. All 18 have publicly expressed sympathy for terrorism or posted blatantly anti-Semitic content — such as images depicting Jews as rats or suggestions that “Hitler would be a dove” compared with what they wanted done to Jews. There is also evidence that you followed an Instagram account that regularly posted anti-Semitic content, and that your campaign fundraiser shared similar material. How do you explain so many associations with people who promote anti-Semitism? Do you share any of these views?

Questions for Ayanna Pressley:

10) Can you please explain your comments at Netroots Nation about not needing any more “brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice” or “black faces that don’t want to be a black voice”? Are you suggesting that individuals with a particular skin tone must adopt a particular viewpoint?

 

 

All good questions.

 

  • Like 2
  • Disdain 2

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...