Bernie Sanders wants the working class voters back

[LeftofLeft]

Having wealthy liberal elites use the State as a medium to take peoples’ earned money in the name of the Poor to first reward friends and then use what is left over to the poor must be more your style.

Guy, we've been over this. WHen the rich pay their fair share, we can pay our bills. It's this most amazing thing.

There is no consensus on “fair share” nor is there a unified commitment to reduce our bills (“cut spending”). You are standing in sand.

 

[The Original Tree]

How do we avoid future authoritarians? Winning back the working class is key | US elections 2020 | The Guardian

“A segment of working-class people in our country still believes Donald Trump defends their interests. We must win them over”

“Democrats must show, in word and deed, how fraudulent the Republican party is when it claims to be the party of working families.”

Sanders is a typical despicable demagogue Democrat Politician.
He uses hate and envy as his class warfare weapons.
It is shocking that there are actually people who trust and admire this cretin.
How can the Democratic Party convince the people who they hate to vote for them?
How can they take back calling working class people names like “nazi, white supremacist, uneducated, deplorable, zenophobic, islamophobic......”.
How can anyone trust the Democrats after their daily avalanche of lies, censorship, corruption and propaganda?
They Can't
Left Wing economics enslaves workers.
Middle Class people do not want to be the Corrupt Democratic Party's serfs.
Everyone is not as dumb and useless as the average Dem Voter.
The Democratic Party is totally dishonest and corrupt.

He should have never accepted the Million Dollar Beach House when The DemNazi Party came to him and told him they used Dominion Voting machines to rig the primary for Hillary Clinton. Bernie has no credibility. He is just a bullhorn for The DemNazi Communist Party.

 

[JoeB131]

There is no consensus on “fair share” nor is there a unified commitment to reduce our bills (“cut spending”). You are standing in sand.

Sure there's a unified commitment to reduce our bills. We've pretty much cut out everything we could cut out in the name of Austerity.

Time to make the rich pay their fair share. You know, before the banks stop letting us borrow.

 

[LeftofLeft]

There is no consensus on “fair share” nor is there a unified commitment to reduce our bills (“cut spending”). You are standing in sand.

Sure there's a unified commitment to reduce our bills. We've pretty much cut out everything we could cut out in the name of Austerity.

Time to make the rich pay their fair share. You know, before the banks stop letting us borrow.

Define “fair share”? In the absence of a minimum commitment to cut spending, I fail to see how “fair” it is to keep making demands for “the rich” (another term in need of a definition) to pay more. The analogy that comes to mind is a bunch of people in a restaurant together agreeing to share in paying the bill of a meal where food and drink are continuously ordered recklessly and wastefully so when the bill comes, everyone turns to the wealthy at the table and demands that they pay more in the name of “fairness” regardless of what they consumed or was wasted.

 

[JoeB131]

Define “fair share”? In the absence of a minimum commitment to cut spending, I fail to see how “fair” it is to keep making demands for “the rich” (another term in need of a definition) to pay more. The analogy that comes to mind is a bunch of people in a restaurant together agreeing to share in paying the bill of a meal where food and drink are continuously ordered recklessly and wastefully so when the bill comes, everyone turns to the wealthy at the table and demands that they pay more in the name of “fairness” regardless of what they consumed or was wasted.

Well, that's kind of a dumb analogy.

The demands should be on the ability to pay. The one percent control 43% of the wealth. The top 20% control 87% of the wealth. And yes, they do pay a majority of INCOME taxes, but when it comes to payroll and state taxes, the burden falls more on the working class, and that's the problem.

We give the rich obscene cuts in estate taxes (Where essentially, wealth inequality is institutionalized over generations) and capital gains taxes.

One more point that you wingnuts don't get. Spending is not going to go down until taxes go up. Period. If you keep borrowing, it's more along the lines of, "Look at all this stuff we get, we don't have to pay for!" So of course, there's going to be no incentive to cut spending.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Define “fair share”? In the absence of a minimum commitment to cut spending, I fail to see how “fair” it is to keep making demands for “the rich” (another term in need of a definition) to pay more. The analogy that comes to mind is a bunch of people in a restaurant together agreeing to share in paying the bill of a meal where food and drink are continuously ordered recklessly and wastefully so when the bill comes, everyone turns to the wealthy at the table and demands that they pay more in the name of “fairness” regardless of what they consumed or was wasted.

Well, that's kind of a dumb analogy.

The demands should be on the ability to pay. The one percent control 43% of the wealth. The top 20% control 87% of the wealth. And yes, they do pay a majority of INCOME taxes, but when it comes to payroll and state taxes, the burden falls more on the working class, and that's the problem.

We give the rich obscene cuts in estate taxes (Where essentially, wealth inequality is institutionalized over generations) and capital gains taxes.

One more point that you wingnuts don't get. Spending is not going to go down until taxes go up. Period. If you keep borrowing, it's more along the lines of, "Look at all this stuff we get, we don't have to pay for!" So of course, there's going to be no incentive to cut spending.

You keep up the mocking yet you still refuse to define “fair share”. Wealth inequality is not the problem. It is a bullshit class warfare tactic used by socialists and communists knowing full well that wealth inequality is a problem that is never solved regardless if the economic system is Capitalist, Socialist, Communist, or Fascist.

I have yet to see Federal spending decline when taxes have risen.

 

[JoeB131]

You keep up the mocking yet you still refuse to define “fair share”. Wealth inequality is not the problem. It is a bullshit class warfare tactic used by socialists and communists knowing full well that wealth inequality is a problem that is never solved regardless if the economic system is Capitalist, Socialist, Communist, or Fascist.

I have yet to see Federal spending decline when taxes have risen.

You mean other than the 1990's... when we had the combination of the Clinton tax increases and a drawdown of wasteful military spending with the peace dividend? The end result was- wait for it - Going from huge deficits to sizeable surpluses...

Yes, Buddy, I keep mocking someone who spends his days and nights worrying, "Gee, I hope the Rich have enough money to buy Yachts and Dressage Horses, the poor dears!!!"

I worry our roads are falling apart and the next generation doesn't have the skills to do the jobs the future will require. That costs money. The Rich Have money. Wow, this is simpler than I thought.

 

[LeftofLeft]

You keep up the mocking yet you still refuse to define “fair share”. Wealth inequality is not the problem. It is a bullshit class warfare tactic used by socialists and communists knowing full well that wealth inequality is a problem that is never solved regardless if the economic system is Capitalist, Socialist, Communist, or Fascist.

I have yet to see Federal spending decline when taxes have risen.

You mean other than the 1990's... when we had the combination of the Clinton tax increases and a drawdown of wasteful military spending with the peace dividend? The end result was- wait for it - Going from huge deficits to sizeable surpluses...

Yes, Buddy, I keep mocking someone who spends his days and nights worrying, "Gee, I hope the Rich have enough money to buy Yachts and Dressage Horses, the poor dears!!!"

I worry our roads are falling apart and the next generation doesn't have the skills to do the jobs the future will require. That costs money. The Rich Have money. Wow, this is simpler than I thought.

You are blinded by your own class envy. The Clinton gutting Military spending was too concentrated. It weakened our Defense infrastructure. It should have been more distributed. But hey, look back, look now, look to the future.

 

[JoeB131]

You are blinded by your own class envy. The Clinton gutting Military spending was too concentrated. It weakened our Defense infrastructure. It should have been more distributed. But hey, look back, look now, look to the future.

No, it didn't. Frankly, buying more expensive planes wouldn't have stopped 9/11.

It's not class envy, buddy, it's the realization that massive wealth inequality is unsustainable, as the French found out in 1787, the Russians found out in 1917, the Iranians found out in 1979. Eventually, people on the bottom get sick of it.

 

[LeftofLeft]

You are blinded by your own class envy. The Clinton gutting Military spending was too concentrated. It weakened our Defense infrastructure. It should have been more distributed. But hey, look back, look now, look to the future.

No, it didn't. Frankly, buying more expensive planes wouldn't have stopped 9/11.

It's not class envy, buddy, it's the realization that massive wealth inequality is unsustainable, as the French found out in 1787, the Russians found out in 1917, the Iranians found out in 1979. Eventually, people on the bottom get sick of it.

Wealth inequality is alive and well in every economic system worldwide. You are too fucking blind to see it or appreciate the fact that our system here in the US gives more economic opportunity than any other system. Economic plans rooted in Class envy only yield one outcome and that is a true, locked-in 1 percent. The good news is that people who have fled economically oppressive regimes to live here and create opportunity have validated my premise. Your premise is rooted knee deep in your vitriolic personal hate and envy for other peoples’ wealth. The only thing that will satisfy you is punishment and destruction of the wealthy. It won’t yield the bullshit outcome of reduced economic inequality you are purporting.

 

[JoeB131]

Wealth inequality is alive and well in every economic system worldwide. You are too fucking blind to see it or appreciate the fact that our system here in the US gives more economic opportunity than any other system.

Except it really doesn't. Our standard of living has sunk behind Europe a long time ago.

Your premise is rooted knee deep in your vitriolic personal hate and envy for other peoples’ wealth. The only thing that will satisfy you is punishment and destruction of the wealthy. It won’t yield the bullshit outcome of reduced economic inequality you are purporting.

No, but I will get to enjoy watching rich people suffer, so there's that.

Again, other countries figured this out. We had this figured out before Ronnie Ray-Gun came along and decided to screw up the progress we had made since the 1930's.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Wealth inequality is alive and well in every economic system worldwide. You are too fucking blind to see it or appreciate the fact that our system here in the US gives more economic opportunity than any other system.

Except it really doesn't. Our standard of living has sunk behind Europe a long time ago.

Wealth inequality is alive and well in every economic system worldwide. You are too fucking blind to see it or appreciate the fact that our system here in the US gives more economic opportunity than any other system.

Except it really doesn't. Our standard of living has sunk behind Europe a long time ago.

Your premise is rooted knee deep in your vitriolic personal hate and envy for other peoples’ wealth. The only thing that will satisfy you is punishment and destruction of the wealthy. It won’t yield the bullshit outcome of reduced economic inequality you are purporting.

No, but I will get to enjoy watching rich people suffer, so there's that.

Again, other countries figured this out. We had this figured out before Ronnie Ray-Gun came along and decided to screw up the progress we had made since the 1930's.

Your premise is rooted knee deep in your vitriolic personal hate and envy for other peoples’ wealth. The only thing that will satisfy you is punishment and destruction of the wealthy. It won’t yield the bullshit outcome of reduced economic inequality you are purporting.

No, but I will get to enjoy watching rich people suffer, so there's that.

Again, other countries figured this out. We had this figured out before Ronnie Ray-Gun came along and decided to screw up the progress we had made since the 1930's.

Except it really doesn't. Our standard of living has sunk behind Europe a long time ago.

What standard are you referring? Whose standard? Have you been to a collection of embassies in a global capital like London or Frankfurt? There is a line of people out the US Embassy trying to get in. Other countries, little or nothing.

No, but I will get to enjoy watching rich people suffer, so there's that.

That is your core outcome..... watching rich people suffer. You don’t care about the best socioeconomic policy for US. You want rich people to suffer.

 

[JoeB131]

What standard are you referring? Whose standard? Have you been to a collection of embassies in a global capital like London or Frankfurt? There is a line of people out the US Embassy trying to get in. Other countries, little or nothing.

Most of those people are tourists, not wanting to emigrate. Argument fail. Nobody wants to move here for our lack of health care and our high crime rates.

That is your core outcome..... watching rich people suffer. You don’t care about the best socioeconomic policy for US. You want rich people to suffer.

Well, that would be kind of fun to watch, but economic inequality is never sustainable. It always ends with the rich suffering a lot worse. Just ask the French Nobles in 1790 or the Russian Capitalists in 1919.

 

[LeftofLeft]

What standard are you referring? Whose standard? Have you been to a collection of embassies in a global capital like London or Frankfurt? There is a line of people out the US Embassy trying to get in. Other countries, little or nothing.

Most of those people are tourists, not wanting to emigrate. Argument fail. Nobody wants to move here for our lack of health care and our high crime rates.

That is your core outcome..... watching rich people suffer. You don’t care about the best socioeconomic policy for US. You want rich people to suffer.

Well, that would be kind of fun to watch, but economic inequality is never sustainable. It always ends with the rich suffering a lot worse. Just ask the French Nobles in 1790 or the Russian Capitalists in 1919.

Most of those people are tourists, not wanting to emigrate. Argument fail. Nobody wants to move here for our lack of health care and our high crime rates.

Bullshit. The United States continues to outpace all other nations worldwide with the most immigrants and lowest emigrants. Further, the elites from other countries - including Canada - come here to the US for healthcare services.

The economic inequality doesn’t seem to bother immigrants as it does yourself and even then it is only a medium for you to address your envy and anger over wealthy people in the US.

 

[JoeB131]

Bullshit. The United States continues to outpace all other nations worldwide with the most immigrants and lowest emigrants.

yes, from Third World Countries... Not rich industrialized ones. Jesus Christ in a Go Cart are you stupid or what?

The economic inequality doesn’t seem to bother immigrants as it does yourself and even then it is only a medium for you to address your envy and anger over wealthy people in the US.

Well, it bothers you, as you want to keep those people out, throw kids in cages, build useless walls and so on.

The reason why we have immigrants is, rich people are greedy. They'd rather pay the Indian Chick less than hire and American. And they get the extra bonus of holding her H1B status over her head.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Bullshit. The United States continues to outpace all other nations worldwide with the most immigrants and lowest emigrants.

yes, from Third World Countries... Not rich industrialized ones. Jesus Christ in a Go Cart are you stupid or what?

The economic inequality doesn’t seem to bother immigrants as it does yourself and even then it is only a medium for you to address your envy and anger over wealthy people in the US.

Well, it bothers you, as you want to keep those people out, throw kids in cages, build useless walls and so on.

The reason why we have immigrants is, rich people are greedy. They'd rather pay the Indian Chick less than hire and American. And they get the extra bonus of holding her H1B status over her head.

People from wealthy industrialized nations and third world shit holes alike come to US. Regarding kids in cages, I was appalled at that Obama-Biden Policy In 2013 as I am now. Hopefully, Biden has wised up and will put a stop to his mistake as well as secure our borders.

 

[JoeB131]

People from wealthy industrialized nations and third world shit holes alike come to US.

The difference is, the folks from industrialized countries come here as tourists, not immigrants. Heck, I've known lots of Filipinos, but the only person from Japan I've known who immigrated her was on a marriage visa.

Regarding kids in cages, I was appalled at that Obama-Biden Policy In 2013 as I am now.

yes, I'm sure you were appalled when they lied to you about it on Talk Radio years later. Because there were no kids in cages. There were minors who were separated from non-relative adults they were with and placed with families.

Lying Sack Of Shit.

Hopefully, Biden has wised up and will put a stop to his mistake as well as secure our borders.

Sure, he'll treat immigrants humanely... but that's probably a concept that horrifies you. They might move in next door.

 

[LeftofLeft]

People from wealthy industrialized nations and third world shit holes alike come to US.

The difference is, the folks from industrialized countries come here as tourists, not immigrants. Heck, I've known lots of Filipinos, but the only person from Japan I've known who immigrated her was on a marriage visa.

Regarding kids in cages, I was appalled at that Obama-Biden Policy In 2013 as I am now.

yes, I'm sure you were appalled when they lied to you about it on Talk Radio years later. Because there were no kids in cages. There were minors who were separated from non-relative adults they were with and placed with families.

Lying Sack Of Shit.

Hopefully, Biden has wised up and will put a stop to his mistake as well as secure our borders.

Sure, he'll treat immigrants humanely... but that's probably a concept that horrifies you. They might move in next door.

Keep up your bullshit about more tourists vs. immigrants to US mantra while ignoring the numbers from the UN.

What talk radio conspiracy crap are you referring? I was told directly about these cages in 2014 from someone working in the HHS ICE program. 2014 was the height of Obama-Biden. My bet is Biden will continue the policy of putting kids in cages and have the audacity to blame Trump.

 

[Zorro!]

How do we avoid future authoritarians? Winning back the working class is key | US elections 2020 | The Guardian

“A segment of working-class people in our country still believes Donald Trump defends their interests. We must win them over”

“Democrats must show, in word and deed, how fraudulent the Republican party is when it claims to be the party of working families.”

Sanders is a typical despicable demagogue Democrat Politician.
He uses hate and envy as his class warfare weapons.
It is shocking that there are actually people who trust and admire this cretin.
How can the Democratic Party convince the people who they hate to vote for them?
How can they take back calling working class people names like “nazi, white supremacist, uneducated, deplorable, zenophobic, islamophobic......”.
How can anyone trust the Democrats after their daily avalanche of lies, censorship, corruption and propaganda?
They Can't
Left Wing economics enslaves workers.
Middle Class people do not want to be the Corrupt Democratic Party's serfs.
Everyone is not as dumb and useless as the average Dem Voter.
The Democratic Party is totally dishonest and corrupt.

The Dems have abandoned the working class at least for a generation.

Yup. And Sanders and AOC are never going to win them back.

Hopefully AOC’s grip on a cocktail shaker was better than her grip on economics. Because she knows nothing about economics. Let me explain.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (known as "AOC," but only to people of whom she approves and YOU ARE NOT ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE), believes that in a free-market economy the only way people get rich is if they take money from others.

This is completely and thoroughly wrong.

Her argument is predicated upon the idea that in the process of achieving great wealth, a billionaire had to take that wealth away from someone else. This simply isn’t how a free-market economy works.

This zero-sum ridiculousness most recently came up as part of AOC's -- I'm sorry, Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez's -- "ask me anything" Instagram stories when she was asked to explain why she believes that billionaires shouldn't exist.

Her answer is that we shouldn't have billionaires as long as there are people who aren't billionaires.

To be precise, her position is that there shouldn't be billionaires while we have income inequality, specifically people who are very poor. This only makes sense if you believe billionaires' very existence is keeping other people down when not only do the two have nothing to do with each other, but quite the opposite is true.

The reality is, billionaires create wealth through innovation, new ideas, hard work, and ambition. It is not a zero-sum game which is a hallmark of Marxist economic thinking in which you can only have a larger piece of the economic pie if someone else gets a smaller piece.

The truth is that in a free market economy (which America still kind of has), not only do entrepreneurs make the pie bigger, but they end up with only a fraction of the growth of the pie they created. Yes, that fraction is huge to an individual, but regardless, the benefits are distributed far and wide.

As economist Deirdre McCloskey has explained,

"Those cameras that are pointing at us are by historical standards, they're ridiculously small. These are high-quality cameras that do as good a job as an enormous TV camera, much better job than a TV camera and even better than the great big film camera in the 1930s. There they are, and that's, the first person to think of this made a ton of money, but actually in the end the inventors don't make that much. They make about 2 percent of the social gain, which, if you're Steve Jobs is a lot of money, but still 98 percent goes to us, the consumers."

As explicated by the Washington Examiner's Brad Polumbo,

"Rather, in order to become a billionaire, Jobs had to spark the creation of 2 million jobs across the United States, nearly 450,000 through suppliers and roughly 1.5 million more indirectly through a retail ecosystem. Moreover, Jobs had to oversee the development and distribution of products that have improved all of our lives immeasurably."

But according to Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez, it's immoral that such people even exist.

"I'm not saying that Bill Gates or Warren Buffett are immoral, but a system that allows billionaires to exist when there are parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don't have access to public health is wrong."

"…a system that allows…"

Let that roll around in your head a bit. The premise of such a statement is that the government permits action. You are not free to do as you please, save for those rights you have consented to grant to the state the better to secure your liberty. No, power resides in the state which allows you to do things, and among the things Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez believes it should not "allow," is for you to have too much success.

She apparently sees no such issues in granting the government too much power. Can it ever have enough?

And she does not address the disincentives she would create when the state essentially "disallows" billionaires which would presumably be accomplished by taxing them into oblivion. No Amazon. No Apple. No Netflix.

No Standard Oil, Westinghouse, Ford, or GE, for that matter.

But then, what do you want? Dan "every billionaire is a policy failure" Riffle is an advisor.

And yes, he trademarked "every billionaire is a policy failure."

Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez does make some good points above regarding the favors powerful interests extract from the government to further enhance their wealth and power, and yet she doesn't seem to understand that the only reason billionaires and other special interests go to the government for favors is because the government has favors to grant in the first place. Remove the wealth-distributing powers from the government and you reduce the lobbying industry to a handful of $2,000 suits scrambling for defense contracts with the rest looking to pick up scraps in highway construction and GAO print jobs.

Not so great for the local Ferrari dealerships, but pretty good for the rest of us.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

How do we avoid future authoritarians? Winning back the working class is key | US elections 2020 | The Guardian

“A segment of working-class people in our country still believes Donald Trump defends their interests. We must win them over”

“Democrats must show, in word and deed, how fraudulent the Republican party is when it claims to be the party of working families.”

Sanders is a typical despicable demagogue Democrat Politician.
He uses hate and envy as his class warfare weapons.
It is shocking that there are actually people who trust and admire this cretin.
How can the Democratic Party convince the people who they hate to vote for them?
How can they take back calling working class people names like “nazi, white supremacist, uneducated, deplorable, zenophobic, islamophobic......”.
How can anyone trust the Democrats after their daily avalanche of lies, censorship, corruption and propaganda?
They Can't
Left Wing economics enslaves workers.
Middle Class people do not want to be the Corrupt Democratic Party's serfs.
Everyone is not as dumb and useless as the average Dem Voter.
The Democratic Party is totally dishonest and corrupt.

The Dems have abandoned the working class at least for a generation.

Yup. And Sanders and AOC are never going to win them back.

Hopefully AOC’s grip on a cocktail shaker was better than her grip on economics. Because she knows nothing about economics. Let me explain.

View attachment 423033​

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (known as "AOC," but only to people of whom she approves and YOU ARE NOT ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE), believes that in a free-market economy the only way people get rich is if they take money from others.

This is completely and thoroughly wrong.

Her argument is predicated upon the idea that in the process of achieving great wealth, a billionaire had to take that wealth away from someone else. This simply isn’t how a free-market economy works.

View attachment 423034

This zero-sum ridiculousness most recently came up as part of AOC's -- I'm sorry, Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez's -- "ask me anything" Instagram stories when she was asked to explain why she believes that billionaires shouldn't exist.

Her answer is that we shouldn't have billionaires as long as there are people who aren't billionaires.

To be precise, her position is that there shouldn't be billionaires while we have income inequality, specifically people who are very poor. This only makes sense if you believe billionaires' very existence is keeping other people down when not only do the two have nothing to do with each other, but quite the opposite is true.

The reality is, billionaires create wealth through innovation, new ideas, hard work, and ambition. It is not a zero-sum game which is a hallmark of Marxist economic thinking in which you can only have a larger piece of the economic pie if someone else gets a smaller piece.

The truth is that in a free market economy (which America still kind of has), not only do entrepreneurs make the pie bigger, but they end up with only a fraction of the growth of the pie they created. Yes, that fraction is huge to an individual, but regardless, the benefits are distributed far and wide.

As economist Deirdre McCloskey has explained,

"Those cameras that are pointing at us are by historical standards, they're ridiculously small. These are high-quality cameras that do as good a job as an enormous TV camera, much better job than a TV camera and even better than the great big film camera in the 1930s. There they are, and that's, the first person to think of this made a ton of money, but actually in the end the inventors don't make that much. They make about 2 percent of the social gain, which, if you're Steve Jobs is a lot of money, but still 98 percent goes to us, the consumers."

As explicated by the Washington Examiner's Brad Polumbo,

"Rather, in order to become a billionaire, Jobs had to spark the creation of 2 million jobs across the United States, nearly 450,000 through suppliers and roughly 1.5 million more indirectly through a retail ecosystem. Moreover, Jobs had to oversee the development and distribution of products that have improved all of our lives immeasurably."

But according to Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez, it's immoral that such people even exist.

"I'm not saying that Bill Gates or Warren Buffett are immoral, but a system that allows billionaires to exist when there are parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don't have access to public health is wrong."

"…a system that allows…"

Let that roll around in your head a bit. The premise of such a statement is that the government permits action. You are not free to do as you please, save for those rights you have consented to grant to the state the better to secure your liberty. No, power resides in the state which allows you to do things, and among the things Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez believes it should not "allow," is for you to have too much success.

She apparently sees no such issues in granting the government too much power. Can it ever have enough?

And she does not address the disincentives she would create when the state essentially "disallows" billionaires which would presumably be accomplished by taxing them into oblivion. No Amazon. No Apple. No Netflix.

No Standard Oil, Westinghouse, Ford, or GE, for that matter.

But then, what do you want? Dan "every billionaire is a policy failure" Riffle is an advisor.

And yes, he trademarked "every billionaire is a policy failure."

Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez does make some good points above regarding the favors powerful interests extract from the government to further enhance their wealth and power, and yet she doesn't seem to understand that the only reason billionaires and other special interests go to the government for favors is because the government has favors to grant in the first place. Remove the wealth-distributing powers from the government and you reduce the lobbying industry to a handful of $2,000 suits scrambling for defense contracts with the rest looking to pick up scraps in highway construction and GAO print jobs.

Not so great for the local Ferrari dealerships, but pretty good for the rest of us.

AOC is a pandering to loser liberals