Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez

1…3031333536…152

Comments

  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,962
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    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.
    None.

    But that isn’t the point anyone is making. But you know that.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • mace1229
    mace1229 Posts: 10,034
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    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.
    Can you name one instance where in the negotiating tactic people asked for something that they didn't really want? In this tactic that is being described, you still ask for what you want, just not what you expect to get. You don't propose things you don't really want. So at best she really wants all these things, just doesn't expect to get them.
    That isn't much better in my opinion.
  • Ledbetterman10
    Ledbetterman10 Posts: 17,014
    I wish there was Pearl Jam news to talk about. Remember those days? 
    2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • mace1229
    mace1229 Posts: 10,034
    PJ_Soul 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. 
    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.
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,962
    Ledbetterman10 said:
    I wish there was Pearl Jam news to talk about. Remember those days? 
    Barely 
    hippiemom = goodness
  • Halifax2TheMax
    Halifax2TheMax Posts: 43,130
    $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.
    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; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,910
    mace1229 said:
    PJ_Soul 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. 
    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. :lol:
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    $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.
    Here comes #Ptape with more #whataboutisms.
    Maybe read up on it...

  • Halifax2TheMax
    Halifax2TheMax Posts: 43,130
    mace1229 said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    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.
    Can you name one instance where in the negotiating tactic people asked for something that they didn't really want? In this tactic that is being described, you still ask for what you want, just not what you expect to get. You don't propose things you don't really want. So at best she really wants all these things, just doesn't expect to get them.
    That isn't much better in my opinion.
    Legislators ask for all kinds of things in their bills. Some are pie in the sky we know we’ll never get but might be used as bargaining chips and others are must haves. And other things fall inbetween. Those are what get bargained with in committee. They regularly ask for things they’ll never get. And sometimes those things get slipped in in the last minute and get passed. 
    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; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    Meltdown99 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    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
    Thanks for sharing.  UBI is the word I read searching for earlier and couldn't think of it
    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.  
    It wasn’t a joke; it was a pilot project. It wasn’t meant to cover all areas of need. Early information suggested it had positive effects but then it was cancelled, so we’ll never get data. 
     
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    PJ_Soul said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJ_Soul 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. 
    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. :lol:
    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.
  • mace1229
    mace1229 Posts: 10,034
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    $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?
  • Halifax2TheMax
    Halifax2TheMax Posts: 43,130
    PJPOWER said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    $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.
    Here comes #Ptape with more #whataboutisms.
    Maybe read up on it...

    How are my questions not relative to the conversation? This is the AOC thread and we’re discussing the Green New Deal, yes? Maybe you meant to post in the Team Trump Treason thread?
    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; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,910
    edited February 2019
    oftenreading said:
    Meltdown99 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    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
    Thanks for sharing.  UBI is the word I read searching for earlier and couldn't think of it
    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.  
    It wasn’t a joke; it was a pilot project. It wasn’t meant to cover all areas of need. Early information suggested it had positive effects but then it was cancelled, so we’ll never get data. 
     
    Thank you - It bugs me so much when people trash universal income experiments as though every little thing that doesn't go perfectly in tiny studies or pilots prove the entire concept to be hopeless or ridiculous, while ignoring all the positive points and the fact that it's still in the experimental and research stage.
    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
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    mace1229 said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    $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?
    The discussion is about government spending. Why did you bring up Trump?
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,981
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    PJPOWER said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    $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.
    Here comes #Ptape with more #whataboutisms.
    Maybe read up on it...

    How are my questions not relative to the conversation? This is the AOC thread and we’re discussing the Green New Deal, yes? Maybe you meant to post in the Team Trump Treason thread?
    Agreed,  this is a real and meaningful policy discussion.  Finally. 
  • mace1229
    mace1229 Posts: 10,034
    oftenreading said:
    mace1229 said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    $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?
    The discussion is about government spending. Why did you bring up Trump?
    I didn't. I was responding to someone else who did. You'd have to ask them.
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    mace1229 said:
    oftenreading said:
    mace1229 said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    $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?
    The discussion is about government spending. Why did you bring up Trump?
    I didn't. I was responding to someone else who did. You'd have to ask them.
    No, you did. Look at the post you responded to. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,981
    PJPOWER said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJ_Soul 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. 
    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. :lol:
    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. 
  • Halifax2TheMax
    Halifax2TheMax Posts: 43,130
    mace1229 said:
    oftenreading said:
    mace1229 said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    $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?
    The discussion is about government spending. Why did you bring up Trump?
    I didn't. I was responding to someone else who did. You'd have to ask them.
    It’s about spending priorities and you have Team Trump Treason on one extreme and AOC on the other. And did I mention Team Trump Treason? He has repubs who support his spending priorities, one of which is the wall.
    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; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©

Categories