Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez
Comments
-
“Unwilling” is such a weird word to use. I cannot believe that they would not put examples in parentheses or something.mrussel1 said:
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.PJ_Soul said:
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.mrussel1 said:
I think your examples fall into "unable ". It needs to be defined for sure.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.0 -
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
Give Peas A Chance…0 -
So not a stretch to imagine that she literally means “unwilling to work”...looney tunes...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
0 -
Bad politics, but I got news for you guys. A lot of people are going to be losing their jobs in this future economy. If people don't want to work (which will be a small minority) they will be doing us a favour. There are going to be plenty of pissed off people who want to work but won't be able too because of disappearing jobs. We will have a lot of unhappy people on guaranteed income.0
-
Thanks for sharing. UBI is the word I read searching for earlier and couldn't think of itMeltdown99 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=IwAR28c1UC5UdTIms2LCWBjeVa0TfujFr1OskgW1QBe1SlOBmsNe7fkCnVHho0 -
Yes, but I’m talking about the starting point. If you offer $1 for a house you won’t get a counter offer.HughFreakingDillon said:
isn't that how any negotiation works? you always ask for more than you want so you actually get what you want.cincybearcat said:
No. Cause that’s pretty silly.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?
Try thst the next next time you are negotiating the price of a house (I’ll pay you $1!) or a raise (I want $2 bezillion)hippiemom = goodness0 -
PJPOWER said:
So not a stretch to imagine that she literally means “unwilling to work”...looney tunes...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=IwAR28c1UC5UdTIms2LCWBjeVa0TfujFr1OskgW1QBe1SlOBmsNe7fkCnVHhoIt is still a stretch. How are you connecting this to AOC? I assumed Meltdown posted this in response to our shift in the convo to universal income.And did you actually read the whole article? Just wondering. Because the experiment doesn't come close to shutting down the idea of a successful system that incorporates universal income. But a lot of changes have to happen for it to work, obviously.What I think we can all agree on is that AOC isn't looney toons. She's obviously very smart and sane IMO. Not everyone's cup of tea, that's all.Post edited by PJ_Soul onWith all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
gotchacincybearcat said:
Yes, but I’m talking about the starting point. If you offer $1 for a house you won’t get a counter offer.HughFreakingDillon said:
isn't that how any negotiation works? you always ask for more than you want so you actually get what you want.cincybearcat said:
No. Cause that’s pretty silly.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?
Try thst the next next time you are negotiating the price of a house (I’ll pay you $1!) or a raise (I want $2 bezillion)By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
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.mrussel1 said:
Agreed. That's a good thing.PJ_Soul said:mrussel1 said:
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.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?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.hippiemom = goodness0 -
Maybe not looney tunes, but straight up kooky dukes for sure, lolPJ_Soul said:PJPOWER said:
So not a stretch to imagine that she literally means “unwilling to work”...looney tunes...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=IwAR28c1UC5UdTIms2LCWBjeVa0TfujFr1OskgW1QBe1SlOBmsNe7fkCnVHhoIt is still a stretch. How are you connecting this to AOC? I assumed Meltdown posted this in response to our shift in the convo to universal income.And did you actually read the whole article?Just wondering. Because the experiment doesn't come close to shutting down the idea of a successful system that incorporates universal income. But a lot of changes have to happen for it to work, obviously.What I think we can all agree on is that AOC isn't looney toons. She's obviously very smart and sane IMO. Not everyone's cup of tea, that's all.
Post edited by PJPOWER on0 -
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.cincybearcat said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Agreed. That's a good thing.PJ_Soul said:mrussel1 said:
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.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?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.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
That's exactly what she means. Here in Ontario, the previous government tried a pilot guaranteed income. The recently elected government cancelled it. It never made sense. A city 15-20 minutes from me has the highest child poverty rate in Ontario and was completely overlooked. The program was a joke.PJPOWER said:
So not a stretch to imagine that she literally means “unwilling to work”...looney tunes...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=IwAR28c1UC5UdTIms2LCWBjeVa0TfujFr1OskgW1QBe1SlOBmsNe7fkCnVHhoGive Peas A Chance…0 -
I just don't see how promoting the idea of supporting those who are "unwilling to work" helping anyone further their cause?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?
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.0 -
Yikes...seems like a system that could be easily abused.Meltdown99 said:
That's exactly what she means. Here in Ontario, the previous government tried a pilot guaranteed income. The recently elected government cancelled it. It never made sense. A city 15-20 minutes from me has the highest child poverty rate in Ontario and was completely overlooked. The program was a joke.PJPOWER said:
So not a stretch to imagine that she literally means “unwilling to work”...looney tunes...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
0 -
That’s a pretty fair assessment and argument. I still want leaders to lead and try to be better than their opposition. But I understand what you are saying.PJ_Soul said:
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.cincybearcat said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Agreed. That's a good thing.PJ_Soul said:mrussel1 said:
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.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?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.
hippiemom = goodness0 -
Ontario had a trial UBI program. I did not like it, it completely overlooked the Ontario city with the highest child poverty rate. I'd rather beef up programs for people who need help. I refuse to discuss the economy and unemployment unless they are willing to discuss the need to get people the skills they need to be successful.mrussel1 said:
Thanks for sharing. UBI is the word I read searching for earlier and couldn't think of itMeltdown99 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=IwAR28c1UC5UdTIms2LCWBjeVa0TfujFr1OskgW1QBe1SlOBmsNe7fkCnVHhoGive Peas A Chance…0 -
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.mace1229 said:
I just don't see how promoting the idea of supporting those who are "unwilling to work" helping anyone further their cause?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?
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.0 -
Please name one piece of legislation that became law where the legistor(s) or party that introduced the bill got 100% of what was in the original proposal or legislation? Just one.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
And with her strategy of "just pay for it" when it comes to healthcare and higher education, I really have no reason to believe this is anything but exactly what she wants. Many doubted she really said that at first, but I think the interview has floated around enough to where we've all seen it. That is really her plan.mrussel1 said:
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.mace1229 said:
I just don't see how promoting the idea of supporting those who are "unwilling to work" helping anyone further their cause?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?
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.
I don't doubt she has good intentions and wants to better our country, but she can come across completely clueless to me at times. And when people accuse republicans of being scared of her, they are right. It is scary to me that people in government want to pay people with my taxes for not wanting to work. That freaking scares me. She scares me.0 -
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. I think everyone should just wait to see if she clarifies herself. If she stands up and say she just wants welfare given out to whoever doesn't feel like working, I'll eat my words. If she stands up and says she's talking about universal income, I'll eagerly listen to how she thinks she can make it work at the moment. I personally support the idea of universal income, but we're not ready for it yet. I think economic realities and the public's reactions to them and have to evolve before UI becomes viable. It's an idea for the future, not for today.mace1229 said:
I just don't see how promoting the idea of supporting those who are "unwilling to work" helping anyone further their cause?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?
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.
Post edited by PJ_Soul onWith all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help