Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Mkay, but this a big huge overreaction to or misinterpretation of the term, no? I would assume that "those unwilling to work" are people like the mentally disturbed homeless people and hopeless drug addicts and shit. That so many seem to have jumped to it being a phrase intended to simply cover lazy asses lying on the couch in front of the TV in a nice home tells me that there is already a HUGE false narrative against her and the entire left. I don't think there is a SINGLE liberal on the continent who champions regular people being big lazy do-nothings. I have always found it very, very strange that the right makes that assumption. I will admit that that document should have been better worded, but not because of AOC. It should have been more precise because the right is so openly ready to foam at the mouth over a false assumption that the left is dying to just throw money at any average person who doesn't feel like going to work. And AOC should have known that. Perhaps this will be a learning moment for her in that context.

I think your examples fall into "unable ".  It needs to be defined for sure. 

I would assume the "unable" would be the ones deemed by medical doctors or mental health care professionals to be unable to work. There are people who fall outside of that category and still can't/won't/don't work. I mean, there are plenty of unbalanced but not technically mentally ill homeless people who claim to choose to live that way, and I don't think drug addicts fall into the disabled category.... Indeed, she needs to qualify the phrase. But that anyone assumes it doesn't mean that kind of thing as opposed to thinking it means just joe blow on the sofa seems weird to me. The right really does seem to think that the left is perfectly okay with random regular people with no definable problems lying around not working because they want to sleep in and play golf, and just get paid by the government to do so. It's ludicrous.

Doesn't this creep into the "living wage" territory,  where some advocate that there is a base wage that all Americans are entitled to and the government covers that if their employment,  or lack of,  doesn't?  I've read more people advocating it as the threat of automation expands.  I read this provision as connected to that theory. 

Meltdown99 said:

Finland's 'free cash' experiment fails to boost employment

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/08/finland-free-cash-experiment-fails-to-boost-employment?CMP=fb_gu&fbclid=IwAR28c1UC5UdTIms2LCWBjeVa0TfujFr1OskgW1QBe1SlOBmsNe7fkCnVHho

Meltdown99 said:

Finland's 'free cash' experiment fails to boost employment

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/08/finland-free-cash-experiment-fails-to-boost-employment?CMP=fb_gu&fbclid=IwAR28c1UC5UdTIms2LCWBjeVa0TfujFr1OskgW1QBe1SlOBmsNe7fkCnVHho

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

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? 

It could be.  It still doesn't explain her not being on the committee that she originally championed or her failed coup. We shall see. 

Yes indeed we shall!

I think that even if she doesn't end up being effective in terms of policy issues and everything, which does remain to be seen, she will likely end up at least being highly effective in just energizing previously limp young voters. It's hard to criticize that.

Agreed.  That's a good thing. 

PJ_Soul said:

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? 

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

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? 

It could be.  It still doesn't explain her not being on the committee that she originally championed or her failed coup. We shall see. 

Yes indeed we shall!

I think that even if she doesn't end up being effective in terms of policy issues and everything, which does remain to be seen, she will likely end up at least being highly effective in just energizing previously limp young voters. It's hard to criticize that.

Agreed.  That's a good thing. 

Yeah that’s mostly a good thing. So long as she doesn’t make them see compromise as a failure the way the recent congress has. She can help change that.

Yeah... It's a tough time to be hoping for this though. It's gotta be very difficult to compromise with the freaks who are currently working against her and her cohorts. It's not like they're dealing with a normal opposition right now.... You might want to wait until after these insane Trump days are over before expecting reasonable things like compromises. It can't say I really expect people to compromise with crazy people. The GOP is so fucked up right now and in total chaos, and I think that needs to be worked out before we expect things to be anything close to normal or reasonable.

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

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. 

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

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. 

This is true.  If someone starts irrationally,  it tarnishes the entire negotiating strategy.  It could be that this "legislation" was never intended to be debated on the floor. Although i'm not sure what the purpose would be just than PR.