cincybearcat said:

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

what dreams said:

These solutions target the so-called middle and working classes at yet again responsible for fixing the problem. It may help someone at the bottom upgrade from their inflatable raft to a canoe. The people on a speed boat downgrade to a canoe. Meanwhile, the folks on the yachts can also own a rocket to outer space. It does NOTHING to address income inequality.
My niece is 30 years old living in DC working for a "subsistence" wage at a non-profit. She was able to buy a condo in the newly gentrified 14th Street district at 27. How? She saved. She sacrificed. She budgeted. She shopped around for a smart mortgage. She worked an extra job. Oh, wait. That's an andecdote. Never mind.   
I'm not opposed to addressing income inequality through measures that might actually work, like a wealth tax that doesn't redistribute income from the bottom. How the hell is it logical to solve income inequality by asking a middle income earner to make less when they too are already living paycheck to paycheck? 
But props to the 10 people working in the AOC's office.  Good for them. They get to make -- and continue to make -- 52,000 forever.

Hasn't she asserted multiple times that she is targeting the uber rich and corporations?

It's getting harder and harder for each new generation to get live. Wages have not kept up with inflation at all. I would not like to be a millennial and am feeling very fortunate I 'got in' when I did.

There is some irony in all of this...  The two things that enabled me to move up the "class" income level were:
1. Working for a corporation.  As 'evil' as we like to portray them, they by and large provide better pay and benefits than doing comparable work for an independent/family/small business. 
2. Getting married - let's not discount the huge economic advantages you get when you pool resources.  For many of us, we spent little time living alone in our lives.  I only lived for one year in a way where I did not share expenses.  I basically went from roommates to living with my gf to married.  Many people do this.  And statistically, being married provides significantly more economic security.  

What's the divorce rate 50%...because an awful lot of people toss away the economic advantage fairly easily in divorce.

Great minds  

my2hands said:

Great, now we're putting a valuation on love, how romantic lol

mrussel1 said:

cincybearcat said:

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

what dreams said:

These solutions target the so-called middle and working classes at yet again responsible for fixing the problem. It may help someone at the bottom upgrade from their inflatable raft to a canoe. The people on a speed boat downgrade to a canoe. Meanwhile, the folks on the yachts can also own a rocket to outer space. It does NOTHING to address income inequality.
My niece is 30 years old living in DC working for a "subsistence" wage at a non-profit. She was able to buy a condo in the newly gentrified 14th Street district at 27. How? She saved. She sacrificed. She budgeted. She shopped around for a smart mortgage. She worked an extra job. Oh, wait. That's an andecdote. Never mind.   
I'm not opposed to addressing income inequality through measures that might actually work, like a wealth tax that doesn't redistribute income from the bottom. How the hell is it logical to solve income inequality by asking a middle income earner to make less when they too are already living paycheck to paycheck? 
But props to the 10 people working in the AOC's office.  Good for them. They get to make -- and continue to make -- 52,000 forever.

Hasn't she asserted multiple times that she is targeting the uber rich and corporations?

It's getting harder and harder for each new generation to get live. Wages have not kept up with inflation at all. I would not like to be a millennial and am feeling very fortunate I 'got in' when I did.

There is some irony in all of this...  The two things that enabled me to move up the "class" income level were:
1. Working for a corporation.  As 'evil' as we like to portray them, they by and large provide better pay and benefits than doing comparable work for an independent/family/small business. 
2. Getting married - let's not discount the huge economic advantages you get when you pool resources.  For many of us, we spent little time living alone in our lives.  I only lived for one year in a way where I did not share expenses.  I basically went from roommates to living with my gf to married.  Many people do this.  And statistically, being married provides significantly more economic security.  

What's the divorce rate 50%...because an awful lot of people toss away the economic advantage fairly easily in divorce.

Great minds  

Yes true,  divorce is painful financially.  But staying together is very lucrative. 

what dreams said:

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

The idea that Amazon pulled out of a deal worth billions because of a couple tweets from a junior congresswoman is hilarious.

Maybe she has way more pull than I thought.

In other news, apparently she is paying all her staff a minimum of $52,000 a year. Leading by example.

Also, that's admirable for sure.  The tradeoff is that the more experienced staffers have to take a pay cut or go work somewhere else.  Each member has a specific budget.  So you pay a junior staffer that runs errands, files, etc, 52k and you pay a senior staffer that writes legislation with a law degree 52k.  If was that senior staffer with a law degree, I wouldn't stick around DC very long.  

That's the minimum. I've heard she will just have a smaller staff to make it work. Some of these staff members working on the hill apparently just get minimum wage, which isn't enough to live on in DC.

So I'm not doggin' her out on this one, because it's an interesting mini-economy here.  Smaller staff=fewer jobs.  Good for people who are employed, bad for the people who are on the outside now, who would have had a job had they worked for a different representative.  
The C.O.L. is enormous in DC, that's for sure.  Congress needs to look at the budgets for staffers, but this is an interesting exercise she is going through and will learn that there are no easy answers. 

Give this a read when you get the chance.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-call-living-wage-starts-office

I guess I heard wrong that she would have a smaller staff, the top wage earners will take a pay cut.

Those poor 22 years-olds, having to work a side gig to make ends meet as they start their first jobs. I was 40 years old before I made enough to work one job in the DC metro area. Did it suck? Yes. Do I regret the experience of hard work? Absolutely not -- and I'm not willing to take a pay cut now so that some young whipper-snapper can make as much as I do after an entire lifetime of work equal to their current age. "Divide it up," that one guy says in the article. If that's what millenials want -- because it's so unfair that people twice their age earn what their experience is worth -- let them grandfather that shit in, so to speak. They can remake the world after I'm retired and dead, thank you very much, if that's what they call fair. God help us with this entitled narcissistic generation entering the workforce. If this is where the Democratic Party is going, I'm out.

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

This thread is a nice microcosm of the general population, although certainly more left leaning.  Some of these AOC proposals are very polarizing and even those of us that are inclined to support Democrats and take very progressive positions, are not supportive of her short legislative track record.  And what she is proposing is emblematic of hard left.  Without bringing the current Trump thread nonsense over here, some of these proposals pose far more risk to Democratic presidential chances in 2020 than anything that does or does not come out of the Mueller report.  

The trick for dem candidates will be whether they can explain a green new deal in layman’s terms that doesn’t sound like tax and spend and a jobs killer. Team Trump Treason is already hiring scientists to back his claim of climate change is a Chinese hoax and the dems just want to control you narrative. Polling suggests it’s a viable issue to run on but you have to be able to explain it so people get it. Imagine if WV built, installed and exported wind turbines instead of “dug” coal.

cincybearcat said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

This thread is a nice microcosm of the general population, although certainly more left leaning.  Some of these AOC proposals are very polarizing and even those of us that are inclined to support Democrats and take very progressive positions, are not supportive of her short legislative track record.  And what she is proposing is emblematic of hard left.  Without bringing the current Trump thread nonsense over here, some of these proposals pose far more risk to Democratic presidential chances in 2020 than anything that does or does not come out of the Mueller report.  

The trick for dem candidates will be whether they can explain a green new deal in layman’s terms that doesn’t sound like tax and spend and a jobs killer. Team Trump Treason is already hiring scientists to back his claim of climate change is a Chinese hoax and the dems just want to control you narrative. Polling suggests it’s a viable issue to run on but you have to be able to explain it so people get it. Imagine if WV built, installed and exported wind turbines instead of “dug” coal.

 This is an interesting point because how is it not a tax and spend initiative. That’s exactly what it is. Government taking over and determining the actions. 

I think that’s likely needed in some, maybe many areas. But how do you sell it as anything else? Or are you just referring to who the taxes will hit? Selling it as a tax on others? 

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

This thread is a nice microcosm of the general population, although certainly more left leaning.  Some of these AOC proposals are very polarizing and even those of us that are inclined to support Democrats and take very progressive positions, are not supportive of her short legislative track record.  And what she is proposing is emblematic of hard left.  Without bringing the current Trump thread nonsense over here, some of these proposals pose far more risk to Democratic presidential chances in 2020 than anything that does or does not come out of the Mueller report.  

The trick for dem candidates will be whether they can explain a green new deal in layman’s terms that doesn’t sound like tax and spend and a jobs killer. Team Trump Treason is already hiring scientists to back his claim of climate change is a Chinese hoax and the dems just want to control you narrative. Polling suggests it’s a viable issue to run on but you have to be able to explain it so people get it. Imagine if WV built, installed and exported wind turbines instead of “dug” coal.

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

cincybearcat said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

This thread is a nice microcosm of the general population, although certainly more left leaning.  Some of these AOC proposals are very polarizing and even those of us that are inclined to support Democrats and take very progressive positions, are not supportive of her short legislative track record.  And what she is proposing is emblematic of hard left.  Without bringing the current Trump thread nonsense over here, some of these proposals pose far more risk to Democratic presidential chances in 2020 than anything that does or does not come out of the Mueller report.  

The trick for dem candidates will be whether they can explain a green new deal in layman’s terms that doesn’t sound like tax and spend and a jobs killer. Team Trump Treason is already hiring scientists to back his claim of climate change is a Chinese hoax and the dems just want to control you narrative. Polling suggests it’s a viable issue to run on but you have to be able to explain it so people get it. Imagine if WV built, installed and exported wind turbines instead of “dug” coal.

 This is an interesting point because how is it not a tax and spend initiative. That’s exactly what it is. Government taking over and determining the actions. 

I think that’s likely needed in some, maybe many areas. But how do you sell it as anything else? Or are you just referring to who the taxes will hit? Selling it as a tax on others? 

It’s a shifting of energy priorities. Fracking and oil exploration and coal mining are subsidized. Switch the ratios over time to allow for a transition to cleaner fuel alternative. You’ll never eliminate the need for oil like some wish. Personally, I think it’s too late.

Oil companies are too big to fail.  The amount of people that they employ and the money that they make for their stock holders is not something that people are just willing to give up that easily.

We do need people like Musk to make other forms of energy readily available.