Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez

mace1229

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

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.

PJ_Soul

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

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).

cincybearcat

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

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.

PJ_Soul

cincybearcat said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

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?

my2hands

23 pages for a freshman congresswoman... lively... I like it

mrussel1

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

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.  

Halifax2TheMax

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.

bootlegger10

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. 

HesCalledDyer

bootlegger10 said:

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. 

Meltdown99

HesCalledDyer said:

bootlegger10 said:

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.

mrussel1

HesCalledDyer said:

bootlegger10 said:

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. 

The problem with this assessment is the inherent assumption that we are only competing on a national stage for jobs.  We're not, it's a global economy and global workforce.  So if we discourage or otherwise move to reduce the % of people with advanced degrees, it only hurts our nation as we compete with other countries that are doing the opposite with their workforce.  US and global companies will recruit internationally and our workforce will be considered inferior.  This is not the solution.  The arguments you raise are similar to the ones that were raised when high school degrees became mandatory, and a parents' responsibility.  And before that, when reading became an expectation.  
The cost issue is a real one, but there is accountability due to the students who select private schools and out of state schools, when they don't have the means to attend them.  The stigma against two year community college is also ridiculous.  I'm in favor, and have been for awhile, of the federal gov't subsidizing tuition, through the school, for in demand programs.  Today, that is healthcare and STEM.  Tomorrow it might be different.  

HesCalledDyer

If someone has the the talent to work on a global scale, they most likely have the intelligence to go to college. There are people with college degrees who don’t have basic writing or arithmetic skills. They’re not competing for jobs in a global market.

mrussel1

HesCalledDyer said:

If someone has the the talent to work on a global scale, they most likely have the intelligence to go to college. There are people with college degrees who don’t have basic writing or arithmetic skills. They’re not competing for jobs in a global market.

So who gets to to make the decision that some kids get to go to school and some don't?

HesCalledDyer

mrussel1 said:

HesCalledDyer said:

If someone has the the talent to work on a global scale, they most likely have the intelligence to go to college. There are people with college degrees who don’t have basic writing or arithmetic skills. They’re not competing for jobs in a global market.

So who gets to to make the decision that some kids get to go to school and some don't?

Isn’t that what college applications are for? 

mrussel1

HesCalledDyer said:

mrussel1 said:

HesCalledDyer said:

If someone has the the talent to work on a global scale, they most likely have the intelligence to go to college. There are people with college degrees who don’t have basic writing or arithmetic skills. They’re not competing for jobs in a global market.

So who gets to to make the decision that some kids get to go to school and some don't?

Isn’t that what college applications are for? 

Exactly.  So what are you advocating for precisely?  Are you just musing or believe there should be some efforts to reduce the number of kids in school? For the record,  I would be passionately against anything that doesn't encourage higher ed. There should be more education on how to make better economic choices in your school selection and major. 

mrussel1

Interesting twist... evidently there was version control issues with the New Green Deal along with a fake.   According to AOC, here is the official one,  without any mention of the passage we got caught up in yesterday.  Hard to know what's what these days.   https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109

Here's the Hill article..  https://thehill.com/homenews/house/429282-ocasio-cortez-camp-clarifies-green-new-deal-details-after-faq-sparks-backlash

HesCalledDyer

mrussel1 said:

HesCalledDyer said:

mrussel1 said:

HesCalledDyer said:

If someone has the the talent to work on a global scale, they most likely have the intelligence to go to college. There are people with college degrees who don’t have basic writing or arithmetic skills. They’re not competing for jobs in a global market.

So who gets to to make the decision that some kids get to go to school and some don't?

Isn’t that what college applications are for? 

Exactly.  So what are you advocating for precisely?  Are you just musing or believe there should be some efforts to reduce the number of kids in school? For the record,  I would be passionately against anything that doesn't encourage higher ed. There should be more education on how to make better economic choices in your school selection and major. 

What I’m advocating for is dumbasses who shouldn’t even have graduated high school not being admitted to college. I’m not against encouraging higher education but some people just aren’t suited for it. And yet they’re getting degrees. This isn’t just a college problem, it’s a failure of the education system as a whole to not have kids ready and well-educated enough to attend college. But they’re getting in anyway. So I guess maybe start there before we make college free and open to everyone. I completely agree with your last statement.

mickeyrat

mrussel1 said:

HesCalledDyer said:

mrussel1 said:

HesCalledDyer said:

If someone has the the talent to work on a global scale, they most likely have the intelligence to go to college. There are people with college degrees who don’t have basic writing or arithmetic skills. They’re not competing for jobs in a global market.

So who gets to to make the decision that some kids get to go to school and some don't?

Isn’t that what college applications are for? 

Exactly.  So what are you advocating for precisely?  Are you just musing or believe there should be some efforts to reduce the number of kids in school? For the record,  I would be passionately against anything that doesn't encourage higher ed. There should be more education on how to make better economic choices in your school selection and major. 

so where then does vocational education fit into the equation?

some kids just arent built for or cut out for "higher eduction" but are more suited for very marketable skills learned in vocational education..... without the debt that comes with a college degree.

SPEEDY MCCREADY

My opinion of Ms. Cortez?

She is bat-shit crazy.

Pure comedy.

Meltdown99

Parents who do not show their kids that the trades are a viable option over college are not being fair to their kids.  I come from a family of tradespeople, all of them have been gainfully employed, never laid off, most have retired by 55 or are retiring at 55.  Tradespeople have no debt and in many cases make more than college graduates...and their careers are just as rewarding.  Employers have trouble filling the skilled trades because for some reason schools and parents over the last while do not view these jobs as viable...