Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez
Comments
-
I actually agree with you and think that it was most likely written this way purposely.mrussel1 said:
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.PJPOWER said:
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.PJ_Soul 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.mace1229 said:
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.PJ_Soul said:
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.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.
It wasn’t like it was a tweet, ha0 -
mace1229 said:
What Trump does has nothing to do with what she proposes.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.
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. ~ Desiderata0 -
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.oftenreading said:
No, you did. Look at the post you responded to.mace1229 said:
What Trump does has nothing to do with what she proposes.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.
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?
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)?0 -
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.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 -
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.0 -
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!!!mace1229 said:
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.oftenreading said:
No, you did. Look at the post you responded to.mace1229 said:
What Trump does has nothing to do with what she proposes.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.
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?
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)?0 -
Pot plants?PJPOWER said:
Maybe if we just planted a bunch of money trees all over the country, we could pay for everything!mace1229 said:
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.oftenreading said:
No, you did. Look at the post you responded to.mace1229 said:
What Trump does has nothing to do with what she proposes.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.
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?
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)?0 -
What a great idea. Imagine all the revenue that would come in if the feds would just legalize!mrussel1 said:
Pot plants?PJPOWER said:
Maybe if we just planted a bunch of money trees all over the country, we could pay for everything!mace1229 said:
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.oftenreading said:
No, you did. Look at the post you responded to.mace1229 said:
What Trump does has nothing to do with what she proposes.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.
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?
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)?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
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.PJ_Soul said:mace1229 said:
What Trump does has nothing to do with what she proposes.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.
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.
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?0 -
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!mrussel1 said:
Pot plants?PJPOWER said:
Maybe if we just planted a bunch of money trees all over the country, we could pay for everything!mace1229 said:
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.oftenreading said:
No, you did. Look at the post you responded to.mace1229 said:
What Trump does has nothing to do with what she proposes.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.
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?
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)?
Post edited by PJPOWER on0 -
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.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.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
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.PJ_Soul said:
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.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.0 -
You responded to comments about government spending and tax policy. Not trump.mace1229 said:
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.oftenreading said:
No, you did. Look at the post you responded to.mace1229 said:
What Trump does has nothing to do with what she proposes.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.
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?
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)?my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
mace1229 said:
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.PJ_Soul said:
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.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.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 onWith all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
Has anyone contacted her congressional offices and asked for clarification of what she meant?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 -
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.oftenreading said:
You responded to comments about government spending and tax policy. Not trump.mace1229 said:
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.oftenreading said:
No, you did. Look at the post you responded to.mace1229 said:
What Trump does has nothing to do with what she proposes.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.
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?
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)?Post edited by mace1229 on0 -
Costs of the wall, and thus, spending priorities.mace1229 said:
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.oftenreading said:
You responded to comments about government spending and tax policy. Not trump.mace1229 said:
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.oftenreading said:
No, you did. Look at the post you responded to.mace1229 said:
What Trump does has nothing to do with what she proposes.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.
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?
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)?my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
Well...maybe Roger Waters...mace1229 said:
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.oftenreading said:
You responded to comments about government spending and tax policy. Not trump.mace1229 said:
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.oftenreading said:
No, you did. Look at the post you responded to.mace1229 said:
What Trump does has nothing to do with what she proposes.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.
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?
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)?0 -
ha!PJPOWER said:
Well...maybe Roger Waters...mace1229 said:
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.oftenreading said:
You responded to comments about government spending and tax policy. Not trump.mace1229 said:
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.oftenreading said:
No, you did. Look at the post you responded to.mace1229 said:
What Trump does has nothing to do with what she proposes.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.
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?
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)?0 -
mace1229 said:
ha!PJPOWER said:
Well...maybe Roger Waters...mace1229 said:
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.oftenreading said:
You responded to comments about government spending and tax policy. Not trump.mace1229 said:
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.oftenreading said:
No, you did. Look at the post you responded to.mace1229 said:
What Trump does has nothing to do with what she proposes.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.
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?
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)?
. But I do agree with what you said 0
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