Ocasio-Cortez hired to make other Dems look moderate?

Or she might truly believe that the political parties should govern for all the people rather than the 1% who have purchased our government.

Then do so without redistributing wealth from the 1% or anyone else.

There's a very simple difference between the pursuit of socialism and the pursuit of independence from enslavement to wealth:

In socialism, the government takes money from people who have it and spend it for them, causing waste and inflation in the name of justice.

With independence and liberty, the government protects the people's right to achieve their own economic welfare, by working and doing business for themselves.

If you want to prevent poor people from hiring each other, you have to eliminate wage minimums and regulations and other barriers to engaging in direct economic production.

You can't afford a house: build one, as small as you need to; no regulations to prevent you from doing so except environmental protections against cutting trees where you build.

There are many other things people could do to organize more affordable lifestyles, but the business-governmental complex blocks them from doing so, i.e. because they don't want them to spend less and cause spending and thus GDP to shrink.

Face it, socialism is a way to stimulate the stock market, and the stock market is used as a way to fill investors' pockets so that they can be taxed to fund the government. The economy becomes a whole lot of people milking financial institutions for money, while others have to keep working to produce all the things they spend that money on.

How about splitting jobs up so that more people can share the burden? How about removing barriers to competition so businesses can step in to provide the same product at lower prices for people who make less money?

Liberals don't want these kind of deflationary economic measures so they want socialism instead, but socialism is hypocrisy because all it really ends up doing is stimulating the economy to intensify, which causes more inflation, which amounts to a flat tax on savings.

That means if inflation kills 10% of the value of all saved money, that's a 10% tax on everyone from the richest investor to the poorest janitor. Over the course of 20 or 30 years, a person who's been saving $5,000 a year ends up losing half their $100k or $150k to inflation, while a person who has saved up $1,000,000 also loses 50%, but they still have $500,000 whereas the one with $100,000 only has $50,000.

Why do Democrats supposedly want progressive income taxes that tax the rich at a higher percentage than the poor, but then they support subtle flat taxes like a flat penalty to mandate universal health insurance buy-in or inflationary policies that stimulate the economy that produces all the inequality that they love to criticize?

Why don't you stop complaining about "the 1%" and start doing something real for the 99% instead of using them as an excuse to spend more and thus pour more fuel on the fire that takes the 99%'s money and puts it into the pockets of the 1% and leaves those 99% further in debt as a result?