Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: A system that allows billionaires to exist alongside extreme poverty is immoral - Carmin Chappell

Found here. My comments in bold.

----------------------

This is what happens when a young person gets involved with Leftists and tyrant wannabes.

---------------------

• Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez agrees that "a system that allows billionaires to exist" is immoral. The freshman congresswoman made those comments at an event celebrating Martin Luther King Jr. Day. 
• She said it is "wrong" that billionaires can coexist in a country alongside "parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don't have access to public health." 
• One of Ocasio-Cortez's solutions to America's wealth disparity is a 70 percent marginal tax rate, a policy proposal that has already made waves in Washington. 
• Ocasio-Cortez made the comments as many of the world's billionaires were gathering for the start of the annual Davos economic confab in Switzerland amid concerns over economic uncertainty and rising populism. 

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez agrees that "a system that allows billionaires to exist" is immoral.

The freshman congresswoman responded affirmatively to a question on the subject at an event celebrating Martin Luther King Jr. Day on Monday in New York, just as many of the world's billionaires were gathering for the start of the annual Davos economic confab in Switzerland amid concerns over economic uncertainty and rising populism.

"I don't think that necessarily means that all billionaires are immoral," she qualified, citing Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, both major philanthropists. Gates is expected to attend Davos again this year. (Class warfare agitprop. She really believes in class struggle, where the proletariat rises up against the bourgeoisie. 

She really believes this nonsense spouted by her peers in their little meetings as they sip lattes. And having little if any experience in the real world, she nevertheless discovers a heretofore unknown superpower, the ability to discern the morality of a group of people based on the number of dollars they have in their pocket.

The correlation coefficient r = +1 for morality vs. dollars is of course a puerile assertion. Human nature is clear in what it shows us. All people have the propensity for greed, avarice, stealing, and general mayhem, regardless of their wealth or status. Ocasio Cortez herself possesses this trait, which is ennobled by the socialist rhetoric she spouts. She doesn't realize that her obsession regarding the wealth of people she doesn't know is in itself greed. 

Thus she believes that she has a claim on other peoples' property. She believes she has the power to decides how much is too much, and those who exceed her morality threshold must surrender their excess wealth to what is to her a higher purpose: Give it to people who did not earn it.

This is nothing more than theft by majority. Theft is self-evidently immoral.)

Still, she said it is "wrong" that billionaires can coexist in a country alongside "parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don't have access to public health." (She happily imposes her morality on the rest of us as if she is some sort of arbiter of what is right and good. Because of her superpower she knows that being a billionaire is immoral. Of course she doesn't bother to peel back the layers in her rhetoric in order to establish her premise with some sort of logical thought process. Probably because there isn't a logical thought process.

We should also note that the possession of money by one party has no bearing on how much money another party has. This is a non sequitur. 

More to the point, she presumes that the billionaire's money is more efficiently used by someone other than the billionaire. Someone else is entitled to that money. If she were being honest with us, she would come out and say that anyone with a dollar more than anyone else is immoral, and that it is the job of the government to make everyone exactly the same.

Of course, we have the testimony of history as to the inevitable result of this. Millions have died at the hands of the equalizers.)

At MLK Now, an event at Riverside Church in New York City's Harlem neighborhood, (She spoke in a church? How is it that these leftists happily gain access to the pulpit to spout their nonsense, but just see what happens if a conservative politician tries to do the same thing?)

Ocasio-Cortez spoke out against economic inequality in a conversation with journalist and author Ta-Nehisi Coates.

"Are we comfortable with a society where someone can have a helipad while [New York City] is experiencing the highest rates of people experiencing homelessness since the Great Depression?" (Who is "we?" Why does "we" have the presumed power to decide these things?

Let's examine the factual nature of her assertion.

Homelessness facts reveal that on any given night, almost 650,000 people experience homelessness in the US. Among them, 37% have families, 25% suffer from mental illnesses (such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression and others), 13% are homeless due to fleeing from domestic violence, 12% are veterans, and over 20% are children under the age of 18.

But only 13% of those who experience homelessness on any given night are chronically homeless, and homelessness has declined greatly since 2007 – by 11% among those homeless occasionally, and 30% among the chronically homeless.

"Homelessness has declined greatly since 2007." She's either ignorant or lying.)

she asked, referring to the proposed helipad for Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos at the company's new headquarters.

The congresswoman has been an outspoken critic of the company, which she referred to as a "digital Walmart," building its second headquarters in the Long Island City neighborhood that borders her district. (What has been her criticism? It would be nice to know, but the writer does not tell us.)

One of Ocasio-Cortez's solutions to America's wealth disparity is a 70 percent marginal tax rate, a policy proposal that is already making waves in Washington. (Probably because it isn't a solution at all. 

And why is it that the first thing out of the mouths of leftists is to advocate increasing taxes?)

The tax would apply to people earning more than $10 million annually, a group whose current marginal tax rate is capped at 37 percent. (How many people have jobs that pay that amount? Well, there are roughly 126,000,000 taxpaying households in the US.

To be certified as a one-percenter, you’ll need to earn $718,766. One-percenters have a 13.4% share of wages.

So the top 1% is not going to be affected by the tax increase. How about the top .1%?

How much do you need to earn to be in the top 0.1%? A hefty $2,757,000.

Hmm, We still aren't there.

To get to $10 million, you would probably will be in the top 0.01%. That is, one of 12,600 families in the country. So, 12,600 families will supposedly carry the burden for the entire country. And this will solve "income inequality." Hmm.)

The proposed tax rate poses the question, "Where do we draw the line in excess?" said Ocasio-Cortez. "Is our material technology outpacing our moral technology?" (Again, who is this "we?" How is it that "we" ought to have the power to draw this line? Why do "we" get to decide what is "excess?")

The idea that an American should aspire to "'be a billionaire and own more than millions of families combined' is not an aspirational or good thing," she said. (Again imposing her morality, she again seems to possess some sort of superpower to discern if it's good to allow people to have money. Incredible.)

Ocasio-Cortez became the youngest woman ever elected to Congress after spending time as a bartender and waitress struggling to make ends meet. (And these are her qualifications to be an economic theorist and a decider about other peoples' money.)

A self-identified democratic socialist, she campaigned on a promise of reducing economic inequality through radical means. (This noncommittal statement carries huge implications.  Lenin was a radical, and his pogrom led to the death of 20,000,000. So we can rightly ask, how radical does Ocasio Cortez plan to be?)

The representative was recently appointed to serve on the House Financial Services Committee, which oversees Wall Street. (Oh, my.)

"I'm looking forward to digging into the student loan crisis, examining for-profit prisons/ICE detention, and exploring the development of public and postal banking," she said in a tweet. (That is, state-run banks, which would facilitate the assumption of all wealth by the state. 

This woman is dangerous.)