DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Understands Politics Better Than Her Critics

It's a tweet.


I was J/C sorry.



Lindsey Graham
✔
@LindseyGrahamSC
The Green New Deal will destroy the American economy.

Any piece of legislation that destroys the economy cannot save the environment.

Climate change is real, but the Green New Deal is a disaster.

Yep. She's in "great" company.

http://baltimorepostexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/adolf-hitler-time-magazine.jpg

Haven't you figured it out yet? They say that about almost everything they think we shouldn't have or do.

Now in this single instance I'm not saying I disagree. What I do know is they try to point out the cost without factoring in what it will create. Millions of jobs for one thing. And not just a job for the sake of calling it a job. You know, like a job at McDonald's is a job but not a job you can actually help stimulate the economy with. Not a good paying job. so while saying jobs are being created sounds like a wonderful thing, not all jobs are created equal.



But think about this for a moment. They claim national healthcare will destroy our economy. Addressing the environment will ruin our economy. It has become a catch all phrase and fear tactic for anything they oppose.

I think the idea of what I've heard proposed is ridiculous. We can't change everything over in 10 years. But we can't be naive to sit back and think we shouldn't be addressing it. We can't sit back and accept deregulation to the degree of allowing coal companies to dump coal ash back into our waterways is a constructive or positive viewpoint. While changing over in ten years isn't realistic, going backwards is even worse. And under this administration, that's exactly what's happening.

And we can't let either party spoon feed us one side of an issue without laying some facts on the table.

If the GOP wants to show only the negative side of the economic impact without showing the increase in taxes and jobs created by changing over to green energy, are they being any more sincere than the Democrats?

You guys vote for someone much closer to Hitler than some former waitress congresswoman. Neither are close, but don't claim one side makes dumb ass comparisons while you do it yourself.

I agree, the reason that I posted Grahams tweet was more to highlight that he is admitting that Climate Change is real and implying that we should be addressing it. Which I found to be an about face for most Trump supporting Republicans. To that end I agree with his post, what she proposed is socialism masked as steps to change climate erosion.

One has nothing to do with the other and she would have been much better served addressing them entirely separate.

There's that socialism label again.

For the sake of argument, let's say you believe that climate change will end the world as we know it in a short period of time unless drastic steps are taken. Do you feel leaving it up to the free market system to make those changes would be the wise way to move forward?

Now on a personal level I think the timeline is overstated. But I do think steps need to be taken to insure that changes are made. When it comes to the life of the planet, one's perception isn't always the reality.

One man's interpretation of socialism is another man's interpretation of the survival of our planet.

Ok, scratch socialism. Let's call it her socioeconomic plan being buried into a climate change proposal. Here are some excerpts:

What business does any of this have in a Climate Change proposal?

Okay, let me clarify. I think she is a socialist. I think her plan includes socialism.

My contention is strictly that the government enacting legislation to bring about a more timely advance of green energy change over can be seen as not being socialist policy.

I agree with that, I would be all for it if there was substantive data or a quality business case for it. I see a document full of platitudes, IMO. She is on the right road, it just looks like someone who had an assignment due last minute and threw a bunch of words on a page without substantiating a single claim.

1. She needs to present data
2. Remove her socialist ideology from the document and run that as a separate proposal.


It happens a lot in politics, you can turn away an otherwise sympathetic group by conflating the issues.

She makes a lot of what I call "rookie moves". In her case I think it's in large part a lack of experience and understanding combined with emotion and feelings that aren't grounded in reality.

Unfortunately many politicians who actually know better use this same approach.

j/c

She has accomplished more than most on the subject because she has both sides talking about it and a few on the right openly admitting it's real. Including McConnell and Graham.

She might be overly simplistic and idealistic but I be damned if I've seen anyone else move the conversation more.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Understands Politics Better Than Her Critics


Ocasio-Cortez Claims Republicans Passed Term Limits To Prevent FDR From Running Again


03/31/2019


Virginia Kruta | Associate Editor



Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez attempted to rewrite history in real time during her Friday night MSNBC town hall event with host Chris Hayes.

As the freshman Democrat waxed on about the time in history when her party was at its strongest — during the Great Depression leading up to World War II — she claimed that the 22nd Amendment was ratified in order to prevent President Franklin Delano Roosevelt from running again.

The 22nd Amendment reads as follows:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

That amendment was passed by the Republican Congress in 1947 — two years after FDR died — and was ratified in 1951. While it was most likely a rebuke of FDR for his decision to ignore the two-term precedent set by George Washington, it could not have prevented him from running again.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/31/ocasi...IRYilazKLXCfK8o

j/c

She's also railing about minimum wage, and how it needs to go up, and uses croissants at Laguardia airport as her proof.

Croissants at Laguardia cost $7, so I don't know why a $15 minimum wage is wrong.

She's assuming people flying and eating at an airport are making minimum wage? Who the hell cares about the cost of a croissant at Laguardia? Shoot, go to a pro sport event and find out what a beer, or a hot dog costs.


I know for me, if I want a croissant, I make one, at home. Wife is buying eggs for $.49 (that's cents) per dozen. When I buy them, I prefer the dozen for $2-2.50 from a local place........you know, that raises the chickens? Add some cheese, maybe a slice of ham.....and forget the croissant - just a piece of bread. All said and done? Breakfast for under $1.50, tops.

If I can't afford a $7.00 croissant at an airport, I don't buy it. Cause, you know, we all eat at airports regularly, right?

Nah, minimum wage on the federal level have been stagnant since July of 2009. Let them starve.

States have the option of going above the federal minimum.

For example, Ohio is at $8.55 right now. Livable wage for an individual? Nah.

But keep in mind, minimum wage jobs aren't designed to support an individual, let alone a family.

And if you stay at minimum wage for more than 6 months, something's wrong with you.

In less than 2 years, my daughter was making over $1.00 per hour OVER minimum wage. She went from bagging groceries, to running the cash register, competently. That's a currently 18 year old h.s. senior. Should she be making $15 an hour? No.

Perhaps you think everyone should start at .....what? %2001 an hour? My understanding is in cities, not even that is a livable wage?

Minimum wage was never established to be a livable wage. Sounds coarse on my part, I know.

You people root for this idiot woman?

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/...rs-re-election/

She thinks the amendment to term limit presidents was passed to get fdr out of office. You should all think long and hard about this one.

Then there is this:

ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ ATTACKED ON TWITTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL MISTAKE—BUT HERE'S THE FULL STORY

https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocas...was-she-1381693

Turns out she was 100% correct and the right wing fake state media was twisting things up to make her look bad. Hmmm...

That newsweek story would make sense if they had skipped the last line.

“In March 1947, a Republican-controlled Congress approved a 22nd Amendment, with an exception that would exclude a president in office from term limits during the ratification process.”

This came out right around the time she was whining on Twitter about the grand media and social media conspiracy against her... Woman has received more positive press and feel-good fluff pieces than any politician in the last 30 years and still whines that there is a conspiracy against her...

It's not that complicated arch. Take the standard that the minimum wage set in buying power from a time in the past and match that. Say the 60's or 70's.

What has happened is people at minimum wage level have gone backwards. To me it doesn't really matter how old you are or how much that wage is. What really matters to me is that those at the bottom end of the wage structure have the same buying power that those in the same situation had generations ago.

Making excuses why that can't happen are not worthy of discussion.

That depends on which side of the media you read and watch.

People try to pretend that the media only works in one direction. But we both know better.

I mean Hillary is gone now. The right has had to find new targets. And currently she's leading in that department.

I know there are minimum wage jobs out there, but are they as plentiful as we are being led to believe?

I see "Hiring" signs several times a week, and they all claim starting wages over $10, most in the $12/hr range.

The lowest I saw was a 5 Guys Burger joint needing "Crew" members (cashier, burger flipper) starting at $9.50, and the current staff is mostly part-time college students.

Whereas McDonalds seems to be all adults in the 30+ range.

I can agree with the buying power part. So then the issue is the cost of goods, not the minimum wage. If goods and cost of living were less, there wouldn't be a need for a higher wage.

So why don't we do something instead of fighting over something that would only help the majority of teenagers, lets all work on bringing the cost of goods down.

We can start with less red tape to run a legitimate business.

I'm certainly not opposed to that. But the next time you go to a fast food place you may wish to look around. A lot of their workers aren't teenagers anymore.

I think the only problem I see with your idea is history. Prices have rarely ever gone down regardless of financial situation our nation is in. The cost of raw materials alone are ever increasing. That, and you would have to convince businesses that the money they are saving gets passed on to the consumer.

I mean many businesses have gone from paying American workers to hiring illegal workers which is cheaper. I haven't seen any indication those savings were passed on to the public.

Hey, at least we agree that people that work shouldn't be moving backwards in their buying power. That's a start!

Lol. Im not opposed to min wage increase actually, but I just know what its going to do.

1. Goods are going to go up - hurting everyone else that makes more. The vast majority of people in the middle class are still struggling to pay for things as is. They will be hurt more than anyone
2. The companies will just find a way to automate the jobs. Leaving those making 7.50 an hour, on unemployment looking for work they are not going to be able to obtain.

Give me assurances the middle class wont get screwed on price increases of goods as their pay will not go up - then I have no problem with a higher min. wage.

I know that's what a lot of people say but that hasn't been what's happened when the minimum wage has been increased before.

This isnt always true.

Today I leased a brand new (not refurbished, completely new top of the line) server from a different hosting company than I use now. The new server is superior in every way, cpu speed, ram, disk space, backup solution, bandwidth, etc. The tech support is superior and the server is fully managed, meaning I dont have to try to be a server admin. They do everything for me.

My old server is several years outdated, self managed, and their tech support is terrible.

My new server and hosting company cost about 300 dollars less per month.

Technology improves over time to be sure, but to have it fully managed and cost less is a dream. I love this company.

There is still competition in business, not all prices always go up.

My business has been open since 2009 and I havent raised prices. I hope I never have to.

So, you're saying when the cost of labor goes up, the cost of goods doesn't?

Technology is certainly an outlier. When flat screen TV's came out they cost far more than they do now and they're much better than they were.

But unless someone is in a business that uses technology, their cost isn't going down. I certainly have no idea of your business plan or the way you run your business and I don't claim to. But it would be my guess that a $300 a month savings to you won't be enough to pass that saving on to your customers. Which was the main topic of how it's hard to get costs down to consumers.

But you see, people who live below, at or near the poverty line, as well as most of the rest of us, are more concerned with what it costs to live. Food, clothing, car insurance, housing and day to day living expenses. These costs are pretty much consistently on the rise.

I'm saying it's overblown.

I try to keep my game costs (price I charge consumers) as low as possible because the majority of my clientele are teens and young adults. My business is online games so it has to be inexpensive as is discretionary income (if they have any) that they spend. In fact, my games are free to play and dont even require them to spend money. Last fall, on one of my games I slashed prices 50-75%.

Making the most money isnt always about charging as much as possible. Ask Walmart.

I guess life basics do go up, but those companies have to deal with competition also.

Interesting. I would say it' s not overblown. That it's a fact.

Which is kind of my point... she acts like it's a big shock that conservative media is taking shots at her for her uber liberal positions on most things...

And the media is completely reactionary... I would argue that the primary reason the conservative media is paying so much attention and hitting her so hard... is a reaction to the tons of positive love and press she is getting from the left.. if the left didn't care about her, neither would the right...

Heck, look no further than the main stream media, during the last primary they didn't pay a ton of attention to Trump because they didn't think he had a chance.. as he gained more and more momentum, their force against him grew proportionally.. that's the way it works.

Problem is that it's a lot more complex than a simple graph that if wages go up 20%, cost of final product goes up 10% or something along those lines..

If the cost of labor goes up, companies that can offshore will be more likely to... companies will try to hire fewer people to do the same amount of work... companies will rush to automate even more than they already are to reduce the number of people...

I'm telling you, for a few decades stagnant wages and economic fluctuations were the biggest challenge of the unskilled lower class... it's not their biggest problem any more.. their biggest problem is automation, robotics, and it's not just about underpaying them any more, it's about not needing them at all...

You sound like a Capitalist Eve. Wouldn't it be better to let a Socialist Govt tell you how much to charge? Then you would have more time to stand in line for a loaf of Bread.

Pretty sure my 22 year old son has video game spending in his budget below only his car payment and his cell phone payment... I WISH he treated it like discretionary spending.

DC jr is 22? Wow. It seems like just a short time ago you sent me a picture of your little boy.

Wages have been comparatively stagnant against inflation for the last 40 years. So the cost of goods will increase regardless.