Has it occurred to anyone that this is her way of that "compromise" that everyone wants out of her? I.e. ask for the world as a bargaining tactic, in order to get the other side to make more concessions, with the intention of getting them closer to her rather than the other way around?
I just don't see how promoting the idea of supporting those who are "unwilling to work" helping anyone further their cause? If I am in a serious conversation and someone mentioned that, I will immediately disregard everything else they say. If that is her tactic, then at least start somewhere realistic, otherwise it just sounds like crazy ideas. And just feeds the mindset of "you just pay for it" attitude that she already has going for her. In my opinion these ideas are discrediting.
As I said, she made a mistake by not qualifying that statement, or figuring out another way to say it. As it is, we're not even sure what she means. Some are apparently assuming universal income (I'm not), others are assuming she means just support everyone who doesn't feel like working (I'm not), and yet others are assuming she's talking about a welfare system that reaches those who are troubled but don't fall under existing qualifications for various reasons (that's me). She absolutely needs to explain what she means. I assume none of her hard core supporters know any better than her hard core haters. The supporters are just willing to give her the benefit of the doubts, because as I said, the left does NOT support just throwing money at random lazy people any more than the right does. That is a false narrative promoted by the right. Anyway, even if she does mean what I'm hoping she means, she definitely needs a different term. I urge you not to just write her off because of one ill-define phrase though. That would be either a major overreaction, or a transparent excuse to hate her more.
Until clarified, I have to take her at what she said. Which was "unable AND unwilling to work." I'm not making any predictions or guesses about what she meant. I'm taking what she said.
Maybe she simply means that it will include those who are unable and unwilling to work, as opposed to those who are deemed unable to work but drag their asses to work anyway (which isn't recommendable). Perhaps she is just the victim of unclear grammar here.
We are the victims of her unclear grammar, she is the perpetrator of unclear grammar. That, or she literally means what she says...She needs to clarify or omit that part.
I don't buy this argument, although it's interesting because it's written to read like a bill, but didn't come out of a committee. I sure as hell hope she and her co sponsor didn't just write it up like a late night term paper. They have staffs and attorneys for a reason.
I actually agree with you and think that it was most likely written this way purposely. It wasn’t like it was a tweet, ha
$1.5 trillion dollar tax cut 80% of which went to the wealthiest Americans. How many college educations or tuition assostance or student loan subsidies could that pay for? Or what could $5.7 billion pay for if you didn’t spend it on a wall? Has the CBO done a cost analysis of AOC’s Green New Deal? What’s the time frame? 10 years? Haven’t read up on it fully yet.
What Trump does has nothing to do with what she proposes. I'm not for paying for a wall. But even if I were, the cost of a wall would only cover about 50,000 students. There are far more students in just the UC system in California than that. Her timeline I think was 20 years. She also closes the letter by double-downing on her no plan to pay for anything by saying If Eisenhower were to build the freeway system today people would be asking how to pay for it. Well, you think? Isn't that sort of an important part of a plan?
Okay, so not building the wall would get 50,000 students free education just with the initial $5.7B asked for? Wow. Imagine how many students would benefit from the other $45B that it would take to finish a wall!
I would love to see what Halifax is asking for: a cost analysis of the Green New Deal please. Until everyone sees that, we really don't know wtf we're talking about.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
$1.5 trillion dollar tax cut 80% of which went to the wealthiest Americans. How many college educations or tuition assostance or student loan subsidies could that pay for? Or what could $5.7 billion pay for if you didn’t spend it on a wall? Has the CBO done a cost analysis of AOC’s Green New Deal? What’s the time frame? 10 years? Haven’t read up on it fully yet.
What Trump does has nothing to do with what she proposes. I'm not for paying for a wall. But even if I were, the cost of a wall would only cover about 50,000 students. There are far more students in just the UC system in California than that. Her timeline I think was 20 years. She also closes the letter by double-downing on her no plan to pay for anything by saying If Eisenhower were to build the freeway system today people would be asking how to pay for it. Well, you think? Isn't that sort of an important part of a plan?
No, you did. Look at the post you responded to.
I know what I responded to. I responded to a comment about the budget for the wall and Trump's tax cuts. That's not be bringing it up, sorry. Which also reminds me, if AOC doesn't think we need to worry about how to pay for things, then what is all this uproar about the cost of the wall anyway (that, for the record, I'm against paying for)?
The CBO and CRS regularly do cost analysis of proposed legislation. It’s non-partisan and an important part of the process. Some prefer think tank analysis. I prefer the CBO and CRS analysis.
The more I read the statements, the more I think she wrote exactly what she meant. I mean, can we all give her enough credit to put together a sentence anyway, why do so many think she doesn't mean what was clearly spelled out anyway? But she also includes "guaranteeing" jobs with family wages, safe and affordable housing and so on as part of FDR's bill of rights. If she didn't mean to say for everyone getting paid, she made that same mistake several times in one letter.
$1.5 trillion dollar tax cut 80% of which went to the wealthiest Americans. How many college educations or tuition assostance or student loan subsidies could that pay for? Or what could $5.7 billion pay for if you didn’t spend it on a wall? Has the CBO done a cost analysis of AOC’s Green New Deal? What’s the time frame? 10 years? Haven’t read up on it fully yet.
What Trump does has nothing to do with what she proposes. I'm not for paying for a wall. But even if I were, the cost of a wall would only cover about 50,000 students. There are far more students in just the UC system in California than that. Her timeline I think was 20 years. She also closes the letter by double-downing on her no plan to pay for anything by saying If Eisenhower were to build the freeway system today people would be asking how to pay for it. Well, you think? Isn't that sort of an important part of a plan?
No, you did. Look at the post you responded to.
I know what I responded to. I responded to a comment about the budget for the wall and Trump's tax cuts. That's not be bringing it up, sorry. Which also reminds me, if AOC doesn't think we need to worry about how to pay for things, then what is all this uproar about the cost of the wall anyway (that, for the record, I'm against paying for)?
Maybe if we just planted a bunch of money trees all over the country, we could pay for everything and never have to “unwillingly” go to work again!!!
$1.5 trillion dollar tax cut 80% of which went to the wealthiest Americans. How many college educations or tuition assostance or student loan subsidies could that pay for? Or what could $5.7 billion pay for if you didn’t spend it on a wall? Has the CBO done a cost analysis of AOC’s Green New Deal? What’s the time frame? 10 years? Haven’t read up on it fully yet.
What Trump does has nothing to do with what she proposes. I'm not for paying for a wall. But even if I were, the cost of a wall would only cover about 50,000 students. There are far more students in just the UC system in California than that. Her timeline I think was 20 years. She also closes the letter by double-downing on her no plan to pay for anything by saying If Eisenhower were to build the freeway system today people would be asking how to pay for it. Well, you think? Isn't that sort of an important part of a plan?
No, you did. Look at the post you responded to.
I know what I responded to. I responded to a comment about the budget for the wall and Trump's tax cuts. That's not be bringing it up, sorry. Which also reminds me, if AOC doesn't think we need to worry about how to pay for things, then what is all this uproar about the cost of the wall anyway (that, for the record, I'm against paying for)?
Maybe if we just planted a bunch of money trees all over the country, we could pay for everything!
$1.5 trillion dollar tax cut 80% of which went to the wealthiest Americans. How many college educations or tuition assostance or student loan subsidies could that pay for? Or what could $5.7 billion pay for if you didn’t spend it on a wall? Has the CBO done a cost analysis of AOC’s Green New Deal? What’s the time frame? 10 years? Haven’t read up on it fully yet.
What Trump does has nothing to do with what she proposes. I'm not for paying for a wall. But even if I were, the cost of a wall would only cover about 50,000 students. There are far more students in just the UC system in California than that. Her timeline I think was 20 years. She also closes the letter by double-downing on her no plan to pay for anything by saying If Eisenhower were to build the freeway system today people would be asking how to pay for it. Well, you think? Isn't that sort of an important part of a plan?
No, you did. Look at the post you responded to.
I know what I responded to. I responded to a comment about the budget for the wall and Trump's tax cuts. That's not be bringing it up, sorry. Which also reminds me, if AOC doesn't think we need to worry about how to pay for things, then what is all this uproar about the cost of the wall anyway (that, for the record, I'm against paying for)?
Maybe if we just planted a bunch of money trees all over the country, we could pay for everything!
Pot plants?
What a great idea. Imagine all the revenue that would come in if the feds would just legalize!
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
$1.5 trillion dollar tax cut 80% of which went to the wealthiest Americans. How many college educations or tuition assostance or student loan subsidies could that pay for? Or what could $5.7 billion pay for if you didn’t spend it on a wall? Has the CBO done a cost analysis of AOC’s Green New Deal? What’s the time frame? 10 years? Haven’t read up on it fully yet.
What Trump does has nothing to do with what she proposes. I'm not for paying for a wall. But even if I were, the cost of a wall would only cover about 50,000 students. There are far more students in just the UC system in California than that. Her timeline I think was 20 years. She also closes the letter by double-downing on her no plan to pay for anything by saying If Eisenhower were to build the freeway system today people would be asking how to pay for it. Well, you think? Isn't that sort of an important part of a plan?
Okay, so not building the wall would get 50,000 students free education just with the initial $5.7B asked for? Wow. Imagine how many students would benefit from the other $45B that it would take to finish a wall!
I would love to see what Halifax is asking for: a cost analysis of the Green New Deal please. Until everyone sees that, we really don't know wtf we're talking about.
If those cost estimates are accurate (I'm not saying they aren't, just admitting I haven't researched enough myself to know which estimate out of the many are accurate) then yeah, I'd rather it go to education. But then here's the problem. If so many people are getting their panties in a bunch over the cost of the wall, it will cost far more than that annually to put America to college. How is that affordable?
$1.5 trillion dollar tax cut 80% of which went to the wealthiest Americans. How many college educations or tuition assostance or student loan subsidies could that pay for? Or what could $5.7 billion pay for if you didn’t spend it on a wall? Has the CBO done a cost analysis of AOC’s Green New Deal? What’s the time frame? 10 years? Haven’t read up on it fully yet.
What Trump does has nothing to do with what she proposes. I'm not for paying for a wall. But even if I were, the cost of a wall would only cover about 50,000 students. There are far more students in just the UC system in California than that. Her timeline I think was 20 years. She also closes the letter by double-downing on her no plan to pay for anything by saying If Eisenhower were to build the freeway system today people would be asking how to pay for it. Well, you think? Isn't that sort of an important part of a plan?
No, you did. Look at the post you responded to.
I know what I responded to. I responded to a comment about the budget for the wall and Trump's tax cuts. That's not be bringing it up, sorry. Which also reminds me, if AOC doesn't think we need to worry about how to pay for things, then what is all this uproar about the cost of the wall anyway (that, for the record, I'm against paying for)?
Maybe if we just planted a bunch of money trees all over the country, we could pay for everything!
Pot plants?
I’m good with that. Instead of concrete, let’s just plant marijuana so thick along the border that no one can get through the weed jungle! We could then sell the product to Canada since they cannot keep up with demand!
The more I read the statements, the more I think she wrote exactly what she meant. I mean, can we all give her enough credit to put together a sentence anyway, why do so many think she doesn't mean what was clearly spelled out anyway? But she also includes "guaranteeing" jobs with family wages, safe and affordable housing and so on as part of FDR's bill of rights. If she didn't mean to say for everyone getting paid, she made that same mistake several times in one letter.
But it wasn't clearly spelled out, that's the point. We need her to clarify. You don't know any more than the rest of us do. You're simply more willing to assume the worst. And I'm sure everyone who leans right is doing the same. And I'm sure everyone who leans left is willing to wait for clarity. Makes sense I guess.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
The more I read the statements, the more I think she wrote exactly what she meant. I mean, can we all give her enough credit to put together a sentence anyway, why do so many think she doesn't mean what was clearly spelled out anyway? But she also includes "guaranteeing" jobs with family wages, safe and affordable housing and so on as part of FDR's bill of rights. If she didn't mean to say for everyone getting paid, she made that same mistake several times in one letter.
But it wasn't clearly spelled out, that's the point. We need her to clarify. You don't know any more than the rest of us do. You're simply more willing to assume the worst. And I'm sure everyone who leans right is doing the same. And I'm sure everyone who leans left is willing to wait for clarity. Makes sense I guess.
I don't see it that way at all. I'm taking what she wrote at face value, not reading into it or making assumptions. Until I hear otherwise, why would or should I think she meant anything other than exactly what she wrote? But you are the one jumping to conclusions by thinking she must have meant something completely different than what she wrote.
$1.5 trillion dollar tax cut 80% of which went to the wealthiest Americans. How many college educations or tuition assostance or student loan subsidies could that pay for? Or what could $5.7 billion pay for if you didn’t spend it on a wall? Has the CBO done a cost analysis of AOC’s Green New Deal? What’s the time frame? 10 years? Haven’t read up on it fully yet.
What Trump does has nothing to do with what she proposes. I'm not for paying for a wall. But even if I were, the cost of a wall would only cover about 50,000 students. There are far more students in just the UC system in California than that. Her timeline I think was 20 years. She also closes the letter by double-downing on her no plan to pay for anything by saying If Eisenhower were to build the freeway system today people would be asking how to pay for it. Well, you think? Isn't that sort of an important part of a plan?
No, you did. Look at the post you responded to.
I know what I responded to. I responded to a comment about the budget for the wall and Trump's tax cuts. That's not be bringing it up, sorry. Which also reminds me, if AOC doesn't think we need to worry about how to pay for things, then what is all this uproar about the cost of the wall anyway (that, for the record, I'm against paying for)?
You responded to comments about government spending and tax policy. Not trump.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
The more I read the statements, the more I think she wrote exactly what she meant. I mean, can we all give her enough credit to put together a sentence anyway, why do so many think she doesn't mean what was clearly spelled out anyway? But she also includes "guaranteeing" jobs with family wages, safe and affordable housing and so on as part of FDR's bill of rights. If she didn't mean to say for everyone getting paid, she made that same mistake several times in one letter.
But it wasn't clearly spelled out, that's the point. We need her to clarify. You don't know any more than the rest of us do. You're simply more willing to assume the worst. And I'm sure everyone who leans right is doing the same. And I'm sure everyone who leans left is willing to wait for clarity. Makes sense I guess.
I don't see it that way at all. I'm taking what she wrote at face value, not reading into it or making assumptions. Until I hear otherwise, why would or should I think she meant anything other than exactly what she wrote? But you are the one jumping to conclusions by thinking she must have meant something completely different than what she wrote.
I just don't think there is any "face value" in the phrase we're talking about in the first place. There is literally no established definition for that phrase in that context as far as I know.
I'm not jumping to any conclusions. I threw out the possibilities, and am waiting for her to clarify so I know which one is correct. I just know that there isn't a belief on the left that any random lazy person who wants to bop around relaxing all day should be able to just collect a living wage from the government, which makes me think that isn't what she's suggesting. If it is, then she's way more rogue and weird than anyone ever thought. It's the hardest theory to believe because it's the most ridiculous, and she's not a complete idiot.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
$1.5 trillion dollar tax cut 80% of which went to the wealthiest Americans. How many college educations or tuition assostance or student loan subsidies could that pay for? Or what could $5.7 billion pay for if you didn’t spend it on a wall? Has the CBO done a cost analysis of AOC’s Green New Deal? What’s the time frame? 10 years? Haven’t read up on it fully yet.
What Trump does has nothing to do with what she proposes. I'm not for paying for a wall. But even if I were, the cost of a wall would only cover about 50,000 students. There are far more students in just the UC system in California than that. Her timeline I think was 20 years. She also closes the letter by double-downing on her no plan to pay for anything by saying If Eisenhower were to build the freeway system today people would be asking how to pay for it. Well, you think? Isn't that sort of an important part of a plan?
No, you did. Look at the post you responded to.
I know what I responded to. I responded to a comment about the budget for the wall and Trump's tax cuts. That's not be bringing it up, sorry. Which also reminds me, if AOC doesn't think we need to worry about how to pay for things, then what is all this uproar about the cost of the wall anyway (that, for the record, I'm against paying for)?
You responded to comments about government spending and tax policy. Not trump.
So in your opinion, when someone asks about the recent tax cuts and the $5 billion dollar wall, that isn't bringing up Trump? And when I answer the question, by mentioning Trump in my response, that means I was the one that brought Trump into the discussion (even though my only mention of Trump in the whole conversation was simply asking "what does Trump have to do with AOC?")? I guess we'll just have to disagree on that then. I don't think any two words, such as "the wall," have ever been more associated with a person.
$1.5 trillion dollar tax cut 80% of which went to the wealthiest Americans. How many college educations or tuition assostance or student loan subsidies could that pay for? Or what could $5.7 billion pay for if you didn’t spend it on a wall? Has the CBO done a cost analysis of AOC’s Green New Deal? What’s the time frame? 10 years? Haven’t read up on it fully yet.
What Trump does has nothing to do with what she proposes. I'm not for paying for a wall. But even if I were, the cost of a wall would only cover about 50,000 students. There are far more students in just the UC system in California than that. Her timeline I think was 20 years. She also closes the letter by double-downing on her no plan to pay for anything by saying If Eisenhower were to build the freeway system today people would be asking how to pay for it. Well, you think? Isn't that sort of an important part of a plan?
No, you did. Look at the post you responded to.
I know what I responded to. I responded to a comment about the budget for the wall and Trump's tax cuts. That's not be bringing it up, sorry. Which also reminds me, if AOC doesn't think we need to worry about how to pay for things, then what is all this uproar about the cost of the wall anyway (that, for the record, I'm against paying for)?
You responded to comments about government spending and tax policy. Not trump.
So in your opinion, when someone asks about the recent tax cuts and the $5 billion dollar wall, that isn't bringing up Trump? And when I answer the question, by mentioning Trump in my response, that means I was the one that brought Trump into the discussion (even though my only mention of Trump in the whole conversation was simply asking "what does Trump have to do with AOC?")? I guess we'll just have to disagree on that then. I don't think any two words, such as "the wall," have ever been more associated with a person.
Costs of the wall, and thus, spending priorities.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
$1.5 trillion dollar tax cut 80% of which went to the wealthiest Americans. How many college educations or tuition assostance or student loan subsidies could that pay for? Or what could $5.7 billion pay for if you didn’t spend it on a wall? Has the CBO done a cost analysis of AOC’s Green New Deal? What’s the time frame? 10 years? Haven’t read up on it fully yet.
What Trump does has nothing to do with what she proposes. I'm not for paying for a wall. But even if I were, the cost of a wall would only cover about 50,000 students. There are far more students in just the UC system in California than that. Her timeline I think was 20 years. She also closes the letter by double-downing on her no plan to pay for anything by saying If Eisenhower were to build the freeway system today people would be asking how to pay for it. Well, you think? Isn't that sort of an important part of a plan?
No, you did. Look at the post you responded to.
I know what I responded to. I responded to a comment about the budget for the wall and Trump's tax cuts. That's not be bringing it up, sorry. Which also reminds me, if AOC doesn't think we need to worry about how to pay for things, then what is all this uproar about the cost of the wall anyway (that, for the record, I'm against paying for)?
You responded to comments about government spending and tax policy. Not trump.
So in your opinion, when someone asks about the recent tax cuts and the $5 billion dollar wall, that isn't bringing up Trump? And when I answer the question, by mentioning Trump in my response, that means I was the one that brought Trump into the discussion? I guess we'll just have to disagree on that then. I don't think any two words, such as "the wall," have ever been more associated with a person.
$1.5 trillion dollar tax cut 80% of which went to the wealthiest Americans. How many college educations or tuition assostance or student loan subsidies could that pay for? Or what could $5.7 billion pay for if you didn’t spend it on a wall? Has the CBO done a cost analysis of AOC’s Green New Deal? What’s the time frame? 10 years? Haven’t read up on it fully yet.
What Trump does has nothing to do with what she proposes. I'm not for paying for a wall. But even if I were, the cost of a wall would only cover about 50,000 students. There are far more students in just the UC system in California than that. Her timeline I think was 20 years. She also closes the letter by double-downing on her no plan to pay for anything by saying If Eisenhower were to build the freeway system today people would be asking how to pay for it. Well, you think? Isn't that sort of an important part of a plan?
No, you did. Look at the post you responded to.
I know what I responded to. I responded to a comment about the budget for the wall and Trump's tax cuts. That's not be bringing it up, sorry. Which also reminds me, if AOC doesn't think we need to worry about how to pay for things, then what is all this uproar about the cost of the wall anyway (that, for the record, I'm against paying for)?
You responded to comments about government spending and tax policy. Not trump.
So in your opinion, when someone asks about the recent tax cuts and the $5 billion dollar wall, that isn't bringing up Trump? And when I answer the question, by mentioning Trump in my response, that means I was the one that brought Trump into the discussion? I guess we'll just have to disagree on that then. I don't think any two words, such as "the wall," have ever been more associated with a person.
$1.5 trillion dollar tax cut 80% of which went to the wealthiest Americans. How many college educations or tuition assostance or student loan subsidies could that pay for? Or what could $5.7 billion pay for if you didn’t spend it on a wall? Has the CBO done a cost analysis of AOC’s Green New Deal? What’s the time frame? 10 years? Haven’t read up on it fully yet.
What Trump does has nothing to do with what she proposes. I'm not for paying for a wall. But even if I were, the cost of a wall would only cover about 50,000 students. There are far more students in just the UC system in California than that. Her timeline I think was 20 years. She also closes the letter by double-downing on her no plan to pay for anything by saying If Eisenhower were to build the freeway system today people would be asking how to pay for it. Well, you think? Isn't that sort of an important part of a plan?
No, you did. Look at the post you responded to.
I know what I responded to. I responded to a comment about the budget for the wall and Trump's tax cuts. That's not be bringing it up, sorry. Which also reminds me, if AOC doesn't think we need to worry about how to pay for things, then what is all this uproar about the cost of the wall anyway (that, for the record, I'm against paying for)?
You responded to comments about government spending and tax policy. Not trump.
So in your opinion, when someone asks about the recent tax cuts and the $5 billion dollar wall, that isn't bringing up Trump? And when I answer the question, by mentioning Trump in my response, that means I was the one that brought Trump into the discussion? I guess we'll just have to disagree on that then. I don't think any two words, such as "the wall," have ever been more associated with a person.
The more I read the statements, the more I think she wrote exactly what she meant. I mean, can we all give her enough credit to put together a sentence anyway, why do so many think she doesn't mean what was clearly spelled out anyway? But she also includes "guaranteeing" jobs with family wages, safe and affordable housing and so on as part of FDR's bill of rights. If she didn't mean to say for everyone getting paid, she made that same mistake several times in one letter.
But it wasn't clearly spelled out, that's the point. We need her to clarify. You don't know any more than the rest of us do. You're simply more willing to assume the worst. And I'm sure everyone who leans right is doing the same. And I'm sure everyone who leans left is willing to wait for clarity. Makes sense I guess.
I don't see it that way at all. I'm taking what she wrote at face value, not reading into it or making assumptions. Until I hear otherwise, why would or should I think she meant anything other than exactly what she wrote? But you are the one jumping to conclusions by thinking she must have meant something completely different than what she wrote.
I just don't think there is any "face value" in the phrase we're talking about in the first place. There is literally no established definition for that phrase in that context as far as I know.
I'm not jumping to any conclusions. I threw out the possibilities, and am waiting for her to clarify so I know which one is correct. I just know that there isn't a belief on the left that any random lazy person who wants to bop around relaxing all day should be able to just collect a living wage from the government, which makes me think that isn't what she's suggesting. If it is, then she's way more rogue and weird than anyone ever thought. It's the hardest theory to believe because it's the most ridiculous, and she's not a complete idiot.
If anything I bet it was intentional, so she could backpedal and say "of course I didn't mean actually unwilling to work...." But the reality is, she said/wrote that she wants those who are unwilling to work to be paid. I assume she meant those who are unwilling to work because that is exactly what she said, you are assuming she means something else, something she didn't say. And I bet after she sees the responses of even the left going "are you crazy?" she'll find some other meaning for it. That part is just my guess.
The more I read the statements, the more I think she wrote exactly what she meant. I mean, can we all give her enough credit to put together a sentence anyway, why do so many think she doesn't mean what was clearly spelled out anyway? But she also includes "guaranteeing" jobs with family wages, safe and affordable housing and so on as part of FDR's bill of rights. If she didn't mean to say for everyone getting paid, she made that same mistake several times in one letter.
But it wasn't clearly spelled out, that's the point. We need her to clarify. You don't know any more than the rest of us do. You're simply more willing to assume the worst. And I'm sure everyone who leans right is doing the same. And I'm sure everyone who leans left is willing to wait for clarity. Makes sense I guess.
I don't see it that way at all. I'm taking what she wrote at face value, not reading into it or making assumptions. Until I hear otherwise, why would or should I think she meant anything other than exactly what she wrote? But you are the one jumping to conclusions by thinking she must have meant something completely different than what she wrote.
I just don't think there is any "face value" in the phrase we're talking about in the first place. There is literally no established definition for that phrase in that context as far as I know.
I'm not jumping to any conclusions. I threw out the possibilities, and am waiting for her to clarify so I know which one is correct. I just know that there isn't a belief on the left that any random lazy person who wants to bop around relaxing all day should be able to just collect a living wage from the government, which makes me think that isn't what she's suggesting. If it is, then she's way more rogue and weird than anyone ever thought. It's the hardest theory to believe because it's the most ridiculous, and she's not a complete idiot.
If anything I bet it was intentional, so she could backpedal and say "of course I didn't mean actually unwilling to work...." But the reality is, she said/wrote that she wants those who are unwilling to work to be paid. I assume she meant those who are unwilling to work because that is exactly what she said, you are assuming she means something else, something she didn't say. And I bet after she sees the responses of even the left going "are you crazy?" she'll find some other meaning for it.
I know what she said - we're talking about what "unwilling to work" means in the context of a welfare system though. I think you need to complicate the way you're looking at it, lol. It is a complicated subject, so it doesn't make much sense to consider it in the most simplistic way possible IMO. I really do think your interpretation of it is the least likely of them all, because it is the least realistic. But as a wise man said, we shall see.
I do suspect it was intentional, but not to just "pretend" she didn't mean what she meant. I think it could be intentional as some kind of bargaining tactic or as a political move (time would tell if it's a good or a bad move, haha).
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
The more I read the statements, the more I think she wrote exactly what she meant. I mean, can we all give her enough credit to put together a sentence anyway, why do so many think she doesn't mean what was clearly spelled out anyway? But she also includes "guaranteeing" jobs with family wages, safe and affordable housing and so on as part of FDR's bill of rights. If she didn't mean to say for everyone getting paid, she made that same mistake several times in one letter.
But it wasn't clearly spelled out, that's the point. We need her to clarify. You don't know any more than the rest of us do. You're simply more willing to assume the worst. And I'm sure everyone who leans right is doing the same. And I'm sure everyone who leans left is willing to wait for clarity. Makes sense I guess.
I don't see it that way at all. I'm taking what she wrote at face value, not reading into it or making assumptions. Until I hear otherwise, why would or should I think she meant anything other than exactly what she wrote? But you are the one jumping to conclusions by thinking she must have meant something completely different than what she wrote.
This. The only people reading into it are the ones saying it doesn’t mean exactly what is written.
The more I read the statements, the more I think she wrote exactly what she meant. I mean, can we all give her enough credit to put together a sentence anyway, why do so many think she doesn't mean what was clearly spelled out anyway? But she also includes "guaranteeing" jobs with family wages, safe and affordable housing and so on as part of FDR's bill of rights. If she didn't mean to say for everyone getting paid, she made that same mistake several times in one letter.
But it wasn't clearly spelled out, that's the point. We need her to clarify. You don't know any more than the rest of us do. You're simply more willing to assume the worst. And I'm sure everyone who leans right is doing the same. And I'm sure everyone who leans left is willing to wait for clarity. Makes sense I guess.
I don't see it that way at all. I'm taking what she wrote at face value, not reading into it or making assumptions. Until I hear otherwise, why would or should I think she meant anything other than exactly what she wrote? But you are the one jumping to conclusions by thinking she must have meant something completely different than what she wrote.
This. The only people reading into it are the ones saying it doesn’t mean exactly what is written.
I am just considering context, which I personally think is reasonable. I am definitely looking forward to finding out what she meant in the context of a government system or policy. What are you guys imagining? Just that perfectly fine people who simply don't feel like having a job get a nice cheque big enough to support themselves with while everyone else who does work gets nothing? Do you really think that sounds like a reasonable assumption?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
The more I read the statements, the more I think she wrote exactly what she meant. I mean, can we all give her enough credit to put together a sentence anyway, why do so many think she doesn't mean what was clearly spelled out anyway? But she also includes "guaranteeing" jobs with family wages, safe and affordable housing and so on as part of FDR's bill of rights. If she didn't mean to say for everyone getting paid, she made that same mistake several times in one letter.
But it wasn't clearly spelled out, that's the point. We need her to clarify. You don't know any more than the rest of us do. You're simply more willing to assume the worst. And I'm sure everyone who leans right is doing the same. And I'm sure everyone who leans left is willing to wait for clarity. Makes sense I guess.
I don't see it that way at all. I'm taking what she wrote at face value, not reading into it or making assumptions. Until I hear otherwise, why would or should I think she meant anything other than exactly what she wrote? But you are the one jumping to conclusions by thinking she must have meant something completely different than what she wrote.
This. The only people reading into it are the ones saying it doesn’t mean exactly what is written.
I am just considering context, which I personally think is reasonable. I am definitely looking forward to finding out what she meant in the context of a government system or policy. What are you guys imagining? Just that perfectly fine people who simply don't feel like having a job get a nice cheque big enough to support themselves with while everyone else who does work gets nothing? Do you really think that sounds like a reasonable assumption?
Yes, the universal basic income, like Finland. It's mainstream liberal thought. I don't think there's much support for it in the US, but it's not unreasonable to read it that way. I did. Im not saying your view is unreasonable.
Reading through the Team Trump Treason thread and this one, I’ve encountered passive aggressiveness, whataboutism and personal attacks. Nice to see the repubs are still around.
Meanwhile, having read up on the Green New Deal, it’s origins, supporters and pillars, I couldn’t find a reference to the “unwilling to work” other than the “overview” released by AOC’s office, I don’t see it in a bill, draft bill or history of the Green New Deal. Any clues to why everyone is freaking out over an “overview” that doesn’t mesh with what else is out there? Seems weird to me. But I’m just me.
We need to bring down the cost of education. I don't want government throwing a bunch of money into the university system to reward colleges for building a Taj Mahals of buildings and overpaying professors to compete with the school next door. I'm fine with government paying for education, but not at current prices.
We need to bring down the cost of education. I don't want government throwing a bunch of money into the university system to reward colleges for building a Taj Mahals of buildings and overpaying professors to compete with the school next door. I'm fine with government paying for education, but not at current prices.
Agree. And further I don’t think everyone should get to go to college. It’s dumbing down higher education and rendering college degrees completely useless. Not everyone is smart enough to go to college and not everyone deserves a college degree. Now, please don’t twist my words on this, folks. I’m not saying poor kids or “inner city” (hate that term) kids don’t deserve to go to college. I’m definitely not saying it should only be for the affluent and privileged. If you’re smart enough and don’t have the money, live in a bad neighborhood, etc, you definitely deserve to go. If you have money but your kid’s a fucking dolt, they shouldn’t get a college oppprtunity.
We need to bring down the cost of education. I don't want government throwing a bunch of money into the university system to reward colleges for building a Taj Mahals of buildings and overpaying professors to compete with the school next door. I'm fine with government paying for education, but not at current prices.
Agree. And further I don’t think everyone should get to go to college. It’s dumbing down higher education and rendering college degrees completely useless. Not everyone is smart enough to go to college and not everyone deserves a college degree. Now, please don’t twist my words on this, folks. I’m not saying poor kids or “inner city” (hate that term) kids don’t deserve to go to college. I’m definitely not saying it should only be for the affluent and privileged. If you’re smart enough and don’t have the money, live in a bad neighborhood, etc, you definitely deserve to go. If you have money but your kid’s a fucking dolt, they shouldn’t get a college oppprtunity.
What would change if the tuition fee was waved? I assume the admission standards would the same? I also think to misinterpret free education, what would be free is tuition? I assume the students will still be on the hook for books and the cost of living.
Comments
It wasn’t like it was a tweet, ha
Which also reminds me, if AOC doesn't think we need to worry about how to pay for things, then what is all this uproar about the cost of the wall anyway (that, for the record, I'm against paying for)?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
But she also includes "guaranteeing" jobs with family wages, safe and affordable housing and so on as part of FDR's bill of rights. If she didn't mean to say for everyone getting paid, she made that same mistake several times in one letter.
But then here's the problem. If so many people are getting their panties in a bunch over the cost of the wall, it will cost far more than that annually to put America to college. How is that affordable?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
But the reality is, she said/wrote that she wants those who are unwilling to work to be paid. I assume she meant those who are unwilling to work because that is exactly what she said, you are assuming she means something else, something she didn't say.
And I bet after she sees the responses of even the left going "are you crazy?" she'll find some other meaning for it. That part is just my guess.
Meanwhile, having read up on the Green New Deal, it’s origins, supporters and pillars, I couldn’t find a reference to the “unwilling to work” other than the “overview” released by AOC’s office, I don’t see it in a bill, draft bill or history of the Green New Deal. Any clues to why everyone is freaking out over an “overview” that doesn’t mesh with what else is out there? Seems weird to me. But I’m just me.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©