The American Constitution

[RSL]

And that, my friend, is the Dutch analysis of American politics.

All I can say is: 

[JoeKitchen]

Nope.

It's always disturbing when someone is "finally" rattling the cage that the parties are hiding in (this goes for all parties). This is a healthy but occasionally confronting thing to happen. Society has been changing much faster that the institutions that goven them. People need to snap out of their entrenched positions and start doing some good for the common well-being. Dinosaurs will go extinct. It's better to adapt and survive.

The mere evidence that a person as unqualified as Trump is propelled into office demonstrates that there is something fundamentally wrong, on both sides of the aisle.

I don't share your analysis, but let's see how it turns out.

In my more direct experience with politics here in Western Europe, these challengers will cause the majority of the other sitting members to (slightly) shift their no longer defensible position to a more up-to-date position. The Millenials understand that in a negotiation, it's rare for one party to win all arguments at once. Progressive insight will ultimately change things (for the better). Entrenchment is a recipe for disaster. Adapt or die.

Cheers,
Bart

Tell that to the Tea Partiers, and their moderate GOP victims, who lost their races. 

The fact is, so much of what is posted in the national news comes from sources entrenched in the most populist areas, like NYC and DC.  They live in a bubble, where AOC is popular, and that is why she gets so much air time.  The vast majority of districts though are moderate and would never vote for her. 

[Alan Klein]

Nope.

It's always disturbing when someone is "finally" rattling the cage that the parties are hiding in (this goes for all parties). This is a healthy but occasionally confronting thing to happen. Society has been changing much faster that the institutions that goven them. People need to snap out of their entrenched positions and start doing some good for the common well-being. Dinosaurs will go extinct. It's better to adapt and survive.

The mere evidence that a person as unqualified as Trump is propelled into office demonstrates that there is something fundamentally wrong, on both sides of the aisle.

I don't share your analysis, but let's see how it turns out.

In my more direct experience with politics here in Western Europe, these challengers will cause the majority of the other sitting members to (slightly) shift their no longer defensible position to a more up-to-date position. The Millenials understand that in a negotiation, it's rare for one party to win all arguments at once. Progressive insight will ultimately change things (for the better). Entrenchment is a recipe for disaster. Adapt or die.

Cheers,
Bart

Bart, That seems contradictory.  On the one hand, you welcome change, on the other you complain about it.  Trump represented change.  He opposes the entrenched political state.  You may not like his methods, but he is refreshing. and different  Sanders is just like Trump although with differing unconventional ideas.  So is AOC charging against the windmills.  I think her ideas will hurt us if implemented.  But like Trump, she gets people to watch cable news and read newspapers.  She's refreshing and exciting.  Just as entrenched Republicans grated against Trump, entrenched Democrats are doing the same with AOC.  Of course, she's rattling the regulars and pushing them too far left.  That's good for Republicans.

[Alan Goldhammer]

I hate to break it to you Bart, but the Dems dont even like AOC.  They know she is kryptonite for all of the moderate Dems and allows the GOP to paint a picture of the Dems being out of touch with the average American.   

She, and her friends, are the equivalent of the Tea Party Republicans in 2010 for the Dems.  All she is going to do is help loose moderate districts, just like the Tea Partiers did. 

When Joe Biden talks about how the real reason the Dems took back the house was the moderates winning in GOP districts, he is absolutely right.  With AOC and her backers targeting moderate Dems in primaries with Progressives in moderate districts, the results are only going to be disastrous for the Dems.

A lot of AOC's problems are a result of her out of control top assistant, Sakrat Charkrabarti.  The Washington Post Magazine had an interesting story on him.  He's the "power behind the throne."  There is absolutely no equivalent to the tea party here as the number of districts that have or will elect ultra-liberal representatives is maybe only twice the number of the four Congresswomen that are being discussed.  There will be no 'wave.'  Certainly AOC is very media savvy but I don't see this as much with the other three.  In any event these four constitute only 2% of the Democratic caucus.  The 'Tea Party' had a much higher base in terms of Congressional districts.

[JoeKitchen]

A lot of AOC's problems are a result of her out of control top assistant, Sakrat Charkrabarti.  The Washington Post Magazine had an interesting story on him.  He's the "power behind the throne."  There is absolutely no equivalent to the tea party here as the number of districts that have or will elect ultra-liberal representatives is maybe only twice the number of the four Congresswomen that are being discussed.  There will be no 'wave.'  Certainly AOC is very media savvy but I don't see this as much with the other three.  In any event these four constitute only 2% of the Democratic caucus.  The 'Tea Party' had a much higher base in terms of Congressional districts.

I was pointing out that just like with the Tea Party, going to far to one side will be a recipe for disaster in almost all districts.  And it is pretty obvious how far left she is pulling the Dems right now.  Just look back at her Green New Deal fiasco; a majority of the democratic candidates signed on in the beginning.  They may have changed their mind or gone mum on it, but the effect was pretty bad.

It has been in the news last week that the organization that supported her is now challenging moderate Dems with progressive candidates.  The fringe will always be more represented in primaries just due to participation bias, so getting a progressive in the ticket in these areas is possible.  However, it would be highly doubtful that progressive would win in a general. 

[Alan Goldhammer]

I was pointing out that just like with the Tea Party, going to far to one side will be a recipe for disaster in almost all districts.  And it is pretty obvious how far left she is pulling the Dems right now.  Just look back at her Green New Deal fiasco; a majority of the democratic candidates signed on in the beginning.  They may have changed their mind or gone mum on it, but the effect was pretty bad.

the Green New Deal is not nearly as bad as the Republican Manta of a balanced budget which has never come to pass.  I don't think the Green New Deal will either.  there are lots of looney proposals floating around at any given time.  It's best not to pay attention to any of them until actual legislation is on the table.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Bart, That seems contradictory.  On the one hand, you welcome change, on the other you complain about it.

Not really. I favor change, but only when it improves quality and results.
Trump is change for the sake of change, quality is lower, and results for Americans (Coalminers, Farmers, all income levels except for the top 1%, Healthcare, Budget deficit, cohesion between all citizens, international relations, moral standing, etc.) be damned.

So is AOC charging against the windmills.  I think her ideas will hurt us if implemented.  But like Trump, she gets people to watch cable news and read newspapers.  She's refreshing and exciting.  Just as entrenched Republicans grated against Trump, entrenched Democrats are doing the same with AOC.  Of course, she's rattling the regulars and pushing them too far left.  That's good for Republicans.

Proposals rarely ever pass unamended. It's a negotiation.

Republicans seem pretty worried about her (and she's not even a candidate), that's why they are trying to damage her reputation. If she were so detrimental for the Dems, then the Republicans would support her more, to sow division in the Democratic ranks.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Not really. I favor change, but only when it improves quality and results.
Trump is change for the sake of change, quality is lower, and results for Americans (Coalminers, Farmers, all income levels except for the top 1%, Healthcare, Budget deficit, cohesion between all citizens, international relations, moral standing, etc.) be damned.

Proposals rarely ever pass unamended. It's a negotiation.

Republicans seem pretty worried about her (and she's not even a candidate), that's why they are trying to damage her reputation. If she were so detrimental for the Dems, then the Republicans would support her more, to sow division in the Democratic ranks.

Cheers,
Bart

Republicans learned from Democrats that it pays dividends when you attack Trump for his "screwy ideas".  It encourages some people to not vote for the crazy Republicans. So now Republicans are doing the same with AOC. Don't vote for Democrats because their people are nuts and will screw up the USA.  Just look at AOC.   

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Just look at AOC.

Frankly, although I do not agree with everything she says, she comes across as more patriotic than the President.
Maybe others will feel the same ...

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Frankly, although I do not agree with everything she says, she comes across as more patriotic than the President.
Maybe others will feel the same ...

Cheers,
Bart

Being a capitalist or Socialist have nothing to do with patriotism.  She's a socialist who wants to redistribute the wealth of the country.  She wants to let in illegals without consequence and provide free healthcare and other free services for them at citizens' cost.  She opposed Amazon moving a headquarters into Queens next to where her election district is located losing thousands of jobs for NYC and additional economic stimulation.   She is from The Bronx as I am which is the only borough of NYC's five boroughs that is part of the contiguous United States.  The rest including Manhattan, Staten Island, Queens and Brooklyn, are on islands.  So I suppose that makes her more patriotic than other New Yorkers.  

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Being a capitalist or Socialist have nothing to do with patriotism.

I'm not so sure about that. Trump is doing a lot that benefits capitalists, but hurts patriots. I'm not saying that a capitalist cannot be a patriot, but that's how it seems to work out most of the time with the self-centered things he does.

She's a socialist who wants to redistribute the wealth of the country.

Define socialist, or be proven wrong.
Define "redistribute", or be proven wrong.
Define "the wealth of the country", or be proven wrong.

She wants to let in illegals without consequence and provide free healthcare and other free services for them at citizens' cost.

Please prove your point, because your statements do not seem to be supported by evidence.

She opposed Amazon moving a headquarters into Queens next to where her election district is located losing thousands of jobs for NYC and additional economic stimulation

And she was already proven right, in that is didn't take millions/billions of taxpayers subsidy to bring Amazon jobs to the area, because companies are eager to get a presence there anyway, even without subsidies.

Cheers,
Bart

[Robert Roaldi]

She opposed Amazon moving a headquarters into Queens next to where her election district is located losing thousands of jobs for NYC and additional economic stimulation.   

I wish more politicians would oppose the handing over of taxpayer money to multinational corporations that don't need it.

[Alan Klein]

I wish more politicians would oppose the handing over of taxpayer money to multinational corporations that don't need it.

I agree.  However, NYC was not handing taxpayer money over to Amazon.  The deal was tax deferrals.  NYC wouldn't collect certain corporate taxes if they moved there. But there would be no outlays.  Now, without Amazin moving there, NYC loses 25000 jobs and the local NYC and NYS income taxes generated by those employees and associated jobs that are created by those 25000 positions.  A majority of New Yorkers were for them to move here, as were Democrat liberals Major De Blasio and Governor Cuomo who made the deal. 

NYC is a natural for Amazon being a hub for commerce, finance, tech, universities, pool of workers, great transportation,etc. They already have 5000 workers in Manhattan and will expand anyway.  But having a headquarters means a lot more commitment and jobs especially for low income blacks who live in the neighborhood.  AOC was playing politics and and wound up screwing people of color. Amazingly stupid.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I agree.  However, NYC was not handing taxpayer money over to Amazon.  The deal was tax deferrals.  NYC wouldn't collect certain corporate taxes if they moved there. But there would be no outlays.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-amazons-hq2-means-for-taxpayers-in-new-york-and-virginia-2018-11-14
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/community-activists-stage-cyber-monday-protests-in-fight-against-amazons-hq2-2018-11-26
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-the-amazon-effect-on-house-prices-may-be-muted-in-the-chosen-hq2-cities-2018-11-07

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-amazons-hq2-means-for-taxpayers-in-new-york-and-virginia-2018-11-14
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/community-activists-stage-cyber-monday-protests-in-fight-against-amazons-hq2-2018-11-26
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-the-amazon-effect-on-house-prices-may-be-muted-in-the-chosen-hq2-cities-2018-11-07

Cheers,
Bart

Of the 4.3 billion dollars, only 500 million was Capital give back to Amazon.  The rest was tax deferrals meaning that since Amazon isn't moving their those taxes will never be collected to give back.  So the city and the state didn't save any money on that portion. Meanwhile New Jersey offered 7 billion dollars and other states even more. It was a foolish move on AOC's part. Her voters the poor would be the ones who getting a lot of the jobs. She was very stupid.  But as a New Yorker myself, I wonder how you know so much about New York City economics, employment,  taxes,  and politics from 3000 miles away?

[JoeKitchen]

And she was already proven right, in that is didn't take millions/billions of taxpayers subsidy to bring Amazon jobs to the area, because companies are eager to get a presence there anyway, even without subsidies.

Cheers,
Bart

First, as Alan has stated, Amazon was not getting any money from the city, only tax rebates.  Second, have you ever been to Long Island City, the NYC neighborhood Amazon was going to move to?  It is not an area that people are tripping over each other to develop, at least commercially; it is actually filled with blight.  Yes, there is some development on Queens Plaza and Jackson Ave, nearly all residential, but off those streets, the neighborhood looks kind of stuck.  And as you go further north to Dutch Kills, it gets worse.  So to say that businesses would be eager to develop LIC without tax rebates is kind of contrary to the reality of what is going on in that neighborhood.  Part of reason for this is a lack of an efficient route via public transportation to get to LIC.  Amazon's tax dollars would have brought in enough to pay for a new subway line, helping to further the development of LIC.  Now though, that is not happening.  Last, about 2/3 of AOC's district, which does not include LIC, were against her forcing Amazon out.  I did not see the polling of LIC's residents, but I am sure it was at least this amount as well being against her move. 

[Robert Roaldi]

I marvel at conservatives who are in favour of taxpayer subsidies when it benefits already successful large corporations. To massacre a phrase, ideology is bunk.

When government spends money to make people's lives better, it's an assault on freedom and/or the free market. When Amazon wants to build somewhere, AND COULD EASILY AFFORD TO DO SO, we frame it as a way to build a subway line to justify deferring their taxes. Nobody ever offered to defer my taxes. No logic is too tortuous, I guess.

Cities have to pay money to the Olympics committee to get the games, now we have to pay money to corporations to "create" jobs for us, Adam Smith is probably turning over in his grave.

As I have said before, we all behave as if our culture is a support system for commerce, when it should really be the other way round.

[Alan Goldhammer]

I agree.  However, NYC was not handing taxpayer money over to Amazon.  The deal was tax deferrals.  NYC wouldn't collect certain corporate taxes if they moved there. But there would be no outlays.  Now, without Amazin moving there, NYC loses 25000 jobs and the local NYC and NYS income taxes generated by those employees and associated jobs that are created by those 25000 positions.  A majority of New Yorkers were for them to move here, as were Democrat liberals Major De Blasio and Governor Cuomo who made the deal. 

There was an interesting story in the NY Times over the weekend on problems Kansas and Missouri were having because of tax abatements handed out to encourage companies to locate there.  As you know Kansas City is split between the two states and companies would play off one state against the other to get sweetheart tax deals.  Most of the corporate moves were 10 miles to one side of the river or the other.  Employees were usually not troubled but each city ended up losing revenue because of this.  they are in the process of legislatively fixing this problem.

[Robert Roaldi]

Maybe they're just not going far enough. Maybe they should just sub-contract all local government to Amazon subsidiaries. What could go wrong.

[JoeKitchen]

I marvel at conservatives who are in favour of taxpayer subsidies when it benefits already successful large corporations. To massacre a phrase, ideology is bunk.

When government spends money to make people's lives better, it's an assault on freedom and/or the free market. When Amazon wants to build somewhere, AND COULD EASILY AFFORD TO DO SO, we frame it as a way to build a subway line to justify deferring their taxes. Nobody ever offered to defer my taxes. No logic is too tortuous, I guess.

Cities have to pay money to the Olympics committee to get the games, now we have to pay money to corporations to "create" jobs for us, Adam Smith is probably turning over in his grave.

As I have said before, we all behave as if our culture is a support system for commerce, when it should really be the other way round.

But it was not just conservatives, but Dems too who wanted this.  Mayor Bill and Governor Cuomo worked hard on this deal, and both were upset when it went south.  Both talked down on AOC for her part in ruining it. 

So, lets get our facts straight next time before we start foul mouthing conservatives, especially since NYC Dems were also for this.