A 70 percent marginal tax rate might not be realistic—but that doesn’t matter. Just proposing a 70 percent marginal tax rate has restructured a debate over taxes. January 31, 2019 Shadi Hamid THE ATLANTIC PRINTER FRIENDLY Twitter Facebook Mail
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, credit: Caitlin Ochs / Reuters // The Atlantic Most Americans—myself included—probably don’t have a well-thought-out position on whether a 70 percent marginal tax rate is a good idea. But it probably doesn’t matter whether it is, or whether it would “work.” To argue that “workability” is secondary might sound odd to many Democrats, particularly party leaders and experts who have long prided themselves on being a party of pragmatic problem-solvers. This, though, could be the most important contribution so far of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the new crop of progressive politicians—the realization that the technical merits of a particular policy aren’t the most relevant consideration. For these new Democrats, the purpose of politics (and elections) is quite different.
Commentators often note that, when it comes to policy, the differences between the Democratic Party’s left-wing and center-left are minimal. Referring to young progressives like Ocasio-Cortez who challenged establishment politicians, David Freedlander writes, “The policy differences … are microscopically small. Nearly all Democrats favor tackling income inequality, raising taxes on the wealthy and the minimum wage, and reforming the criminal justice system.”
This misses the point in a rather fundamental way. Few people actually vote based on policy. As I recently argued in American Affairs, even the better educated don’t primarily vote based on policy. In fact, higher levels of education can increase polarization. (In other contexts, such as the Middle East, the advent of universal education and higher college attendance fueled ideological divides.) As the political scientist Lilliana Mason notes, “Political knowledge tends to increase the effects of identity as more knowledgeable people have more informational ammunition to counter argue any stories they don’t like.”
[Derek Thompson: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has the better tax argument]
People’s politics tend to determine their policy preferences, and not the other way around. In one example from the 1960s, as Christopher Achens and Larry Bartels write in Democracy for Realists, even southerners who supported racial integration left the Democratic Party. Once they became Republican, they then adjusted their views on race and affirmative action to fit more comfortably with their new partisan identity. Put another way, if a person with no prior partisan attachments decides to become a Republican, he is likely to become pro-life. If that same person, with the same genetics and life experience, decides to become a Democrat, he is likely to become pro-choice.
Ocasio-Cortez and other progressives appear to understand instinctually what this growing body of research on voter preferences suggests. And its implications are potentially far-reaching. Once you accept that voters are rationally irrational, you can’t help but change how you understand political competition. Incidentally, this is one reason that right-wing populists across Europe (and India and the Philippines and many other places) have been surprisingly—or unsurprisingly—successful: They seem to have relatively little interest in what works. Instead they are concerned with altering the political and ideological imagination of ordinary voters and elites alike, to make what once seemed impossible, possible. In their case, it often involves normalizing Islamophobia and other forms of bigotry. They have managed to drag the center-right further rightward on issues such as immigration and how to integrate (or not integrate) Muslim minorities. But this same approach can be used by left-wing and center-left parties for more constructive ends.
This focus on shifting the contours of the national debate is sometimes referred to as expanding the “Overton window.” It is altogether possible that Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t think that a 70 percent marginal tax rate is realistic in our lifetime—she might not even think it’s the best option from a narrow, technocratic perspective of economic performance—but it doesn’t need to be. As the Open Markets Institute’s Matt Stoller notes, “One thing that [Ocasio-Cortez] has shown is that political leadership matters. Just proposing a 70 percent marginal tax rate has restructured a debate over taxes. Obama’s presidency was defined by self-imposed limits.”
[Read: How Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s plain black jacket became a controversy] Today, in a way that hasn’t been true for decades, more Americans are at least aware of something that might otherwise have been ignored as either overly wonky or, well, crazy. The 70 percent figure proposed by Ocasio-Cortez was a subject of debate—and derision—at Davos. But by joking about it, billionaires and aspiring billionaires, in effect, helped legitimate it. After all, if the richest people in the world are worried about it, it might just be a good idea. (And Dell CEO Michael Dell unintentionally helped remind the audience that the United States had a 70 percent marginal rate as recently as the 1970s). The economist William Gale, my Brookings colleague, wrote a piece responding to Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal, taking issue with the 70 percent figure but agreeing with the underlying principle: “Ultimately, if we want more revenue from the rich, we should broaden the base and boost rates. Raising taxes on the rich is an idea whose time has come, receiving consistent support in polls over the last few decades.”
This new style of Democratic politics is a far cry from the technocratic “what works-ism” that has dominated in center-left parties since the 1990s. The incrementalist approach, by its very nature, preemptively accepts policy and ideological concessions in the name of prudence. It prioritizes being sensible and serious. But why is being sensible an end in itself? As Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, the 32-year-old Saikat Chakrabarti, said regarding another seemingly unrealistic idea, the Green New Deal: “If it’s really not possible, then we can revisit. The idea is to set the most ambitious thing we can do and then make a plan for it. Why not try?”
I don’t feel strongly about a 70 percent marginal tax rate, but I don’t need to. I might even conclude that it simply “feels” too high. But that just means that if and when a Democratic candidate for president proposes a 50 percent tax rate on income that’s more than $10 million, I’ll be impressed with how “moderate,” reasonable, and sensible it sounds.
The Federation of Indian Associations of New York, New Jerse… Saikat Chakrabarti: The techie behind Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
By Bhargavi Kulkarni
Dec 16, 2018
Saikat Chakrabarti: The techie behind Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Saikat Chakrabarti, on the phone, has been appointed chief of staff to newly-elected New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Seen here are Chakrabarti and Ocasio-Cortez after she posed for the 116th Congress members-elect group photo on the East Front Plaza of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC on November 14, 2018. (/Getty Images
Saikat Chakrabarti, chief of staff to newly-elected New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been named among Politico’s “Power List,” of people to watch in 2019. The list, Politico says, “highlights politicians, activists and operatives across the country who are positioned to play a critical role in the political landscape leading up to 2020.”
The Fort Worth Texas native and a Harvard graduate spent nearly eight years in Silicon Valley before shifting gears. Post Harvard, after a brief stint on Wall Street, Chakrabarti went to California, where he co-founded Mockingbird, a web design tool, and then built up the product team at the payment processor Stripe.
But in 2015, he left the tech space and went to work for Bernie Sanders. After graduation, Chakrabarti wanted to start his own company, Politico says, but he was slowing getting disillusioned by the industry. “You have to decide to create the society you want to create,” he told Politico, “and that’s done through politics.”
On his decision to join Sanders’ campaign, Chakrabarti told Rolling Stone that while he wasn’t “entirely sure he [Sanders] had all the right solutions,” he knew “he was talking about the right problems.” It was at Sander’s campaign that Chakrabarti met Alexandra Rojas and Corbin Trent. All three ended up on the campaign’s “Distributed Organizing Team.” Chakrabarti told Rolling Stone that the team’s responsibilities included “harnessing any and all of the volunteer energy that existed beyond the early primary states.” They traveled around the country canvassing and leading phone-banks.
After Sander’s campaign, Chakrabarti, along with Rojas and Trent, cofounded the progressive political action committee Justice Democrats, and served as its executive director. Justice Democrats joined hands with Brand New Congress, also cofounded by Chakrabarti. Together, they aimed to recruit 400 candidates by asking people to nominate individuals from their own communities. According DC Beat, “party affiliation didn’t matter; candidates had to want health care for all, a living wage, and to want money not to rule all in politics.” They ended up with 12,000 applications, out of which 12 ran for primaries, and one won a seat in Congress: Ocasio-Cortez.
Chakrabarti told Rolling Stone that caring too much about a win ratio is part of the reason he believes the Democratic Party would never have recruited Ocasio-Cortez. “We’re OK losing 90 percent of our races, if it means that the ones we win cause the kind of shift in thinking about what’s possible — like Alexandria’s race honestly did,” Chakrabarti told the magazine. “So that’s a different way of measuring success.”
He has big policy dreams, like a “Green New Deal,” which, Politico says would tackle everything from mitigating climate change to transforming the American economy, and criminal justice reform. He wants to lay the groundwork now to make them realities. “Another thing to really do over the next two years is to basically show the American people what will be possible if the Democrats win the House, the Senate and the presidency in 2020, and that means putting our best foot forward,” Chakrabarti told Politico.“It means putting the most ambitious, the boldest, the biggest things we can, and then just build a movement around that.”
might sound odd to many Democrats, particularly party leaders and experts who have long prided themselves on being a party of pragmatic problem-solvers.
might sound odd to many Democrats, particularly party leaders and experts who have long prided themselves on being a party of pragmatic problem-solvers.
I stopped.
The ACA is literally the Republican healthcare solution offered to Clinton. The excerpt is not stating that Democrats are like that, just that they perceive themselves like that. You sure you disagree with that?
'Green New Deal' lands in the Capitol The climate and economic plan backed by progressives and several Democratic presidential hopefuls calls for "massive" government action "on a scale not seen since World War II."
By ZACK COLMAN and ANTHONY ADRAGNA 02/07/2019 06:18 AM EST Updated 02/07/2019 03:13 PM EST Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) released a blueprint for a Green New Deal on Thursday, urging a "10-year national mobilization" for a speedy shift away from fossil fuels and calling for national health care coverage and job guarantees in a sweeping bid to remake the U.S. economy.
The burgeoning left-wing faction within the Democratic Party quickly persuaded several 2020 White House contenders to sign onto the Green New Deal’s tenets in a bid to push climate change and the broad economic platform up the ladder of party priorities.
Story Continued Below
Declared candidates Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y) and Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) are all co-sponsoring the resolution, as are likely contenders Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), according to their offices. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is also on board, saying in a tweet that she is "proud to join" the "fight for our planet and our kids’ futures."
The 14-page, non-binding resolution from Ocasio-Cortez and Markey is an attempt to add substance to the proposals that have fired up a wave of new activists who are planning to barnstorm lawmakers' offices in the Capitol in the coming days — and to set an agenda for the Democrats in the 2020 election.
“[A] new national, social, industrial, and economic mobilization on a scale not seen since World War II and the New Deal era is a historic opportunity ... to create millions of good, high-wage jobs in the United States; to provide unprecedented levels of prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States; and to counteract systemic injustices," the resolution states.
Morning Energy newsletter The source for energy and environment news — weekday mornings, in your inbox.
Email Your email… Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.
However, the resolution is not likely to go before the House for a vote, according to a Democratic aide, although parts of the plan could ultimately be turned into legislation to address climate change.
Ocasio-Cortez presented the resolution, which was introduced with 60 co-sponsors in the House, as a "first step" to put climate change at the top of Democrats' agenda. "Incremental" legislation would not be enough to address the problem, she said. ADVERTISING
“We can save ourselves and we can save the rest of the world with us," she said at a press conference outside the Capitol.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi welcomed the resolution's introduction Thursday, a day after she told POLITICO it would be one of multiple ideas Democrats consider.
“It will be one of several or maybe many suggestions that we receive,” Pelosi said in the interview. “The green dream or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it, right?”
Story Continued Below
Reps. Raúl Grijalva and Peter DeFazio, who lead the Natural Resources and Transportation committees, are backing the resolution and plan to raise its issues in legislation that moves through their panels.
But Rep. Frank Pallone, who heads the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee, was noncommittal. “There’s a lot of good ideas and we’ll have to take a look at it. We’ll consider it.” Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), chair of the newly established House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, also did not give the Green New Deal her explicit endorsement, though she would consider it as she develops "a detailed policy framework."
As POLITICO previously reported, the plan seeks to transition the U.S. to a 100 percent clean energy system without specifically calling for an end to fossil fuels, stating that it aims for "net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers." It also calls for creating "millions of good, high-wage jobs" and pledges "to promote justice and equity" across all communities within 10 years.
Nancy Pelosi CONGRESS
Pelosi announces Dems for new climate panel By ANTHONY ADRAGNA and SARAH FERRIS Those targets reflect the message from the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report last fall that warned governments must cut global greenhouse gas emissions 45 percent below 2010 levels by 2030 to achieve "net-zero" emissions by mid-century to avoid 1.5-degree Celsius global temperature rise.
Republicans were quick to denounce the resolution.
"It’s a socialist manifesto that lays out a laundry list of government giveaways, including guaranteed food, housing, college, and economic security even for those who refuse to work," Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a statement. "As Democrats take a hard left turn, this radical proposal would take our growing economy off the cliff and our nation into bankruptcy. It’s the first step down a dark path to socialism."
The Sunrise Movement, the youth-led climate group at the heart of the Green New Deal push, is planning hundreds of Senate and House office visits Feb. 11 and 12 to prod lawmakers into signing onto the resolution by Feb. 26. Ocasio-Cortez's office said in a press release that the freshman lawmaker would soon begin to "fully flesh out the projects involved in the Green New Deal" and work with colleagues to identify legislation that could fit into a "comprehensive plan."
Story Continued Below
The resolution advocates for eliminating fossil fuels pollution and greenhouse gas emissions "as much as technologically feasible" in agriculture and transportation, two of the major sources of climate change gases.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi CONGRESS
‘Too hot to handle’: Pelosi predicts GOP won’t trigger another shutdown By HEATHER CAYGLE, SARAH FERRIS and JOHN BRESNAHAN Under the plan, the electricity system would run entirely on "clean, renewable, and zero-emission sources," the resolution states. It envisions newinvestments in public transportation, improving building energy efficiency, clean manufacturing and green infrastructure. Investments would prioritize communities that "may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries" while also ensuring room for "high-paying union jobs" that include prevailing wages and protect collective bargaining rights. It also pushes to "stop the transfer of jobs and pollution overseas."
Achieving many of the goals would depend on a "massive investment program" from the federal government, according to Ocasio-Cortez's office, though it did not call for a carbon tax. Several environmental groups as well as center-right organizations and economists have advocated for such a tax, and Ocasio-Cortez's office said the "door is not closed for market-based incentives."
"We will finance the investments for the Green New Deal the same way we paid for the original New Deal, World War II, the bank bailouts, tax cuts for the rich, and decades of war — with public money appropriated by Congress," the release said. "Further, government can take an equity stake in Green New Deal projects so the public gets a return on its investment."
Critics have hammered the massive spending called for by the plan in recent weeks. Potential presidential candidate and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has backed the idea of a Green New Deal, said recently that some of the plan's promises are "pie in the sky," while Republicans have slammed the concept as unworkable.
Story Continued Below
At a House Natural Resources Committee hearing on Wednesday, Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) criticized what he saw as the youthful folly of new members proposing unrealistic plans in the new Congress with the support of more senior lawmakers. "I guess I can understand if someone who has not a lot of life experience and they’re proposing something that’s extremely unrealistic — well, impossible. Impossible. But what I don’t understand is adults, grown-ups who are older and more mature are also advocating something that is impossible, and I see that in some of the presidential contenders,” he said.
But some of those Democratic contenders cheered as the resolution neared its release.
"Excited that @SenMarkey, my former colleague, & @AOC are starting a conversation in Congress on #GreenNewDeal and thrilled this movement (and groups like @sunrisemvmt) has forced climate action onto the agenda," Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D), who has pledged to make climate change central to his White House bid, tweeted Wednesday.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar 2020 ELECTIONS
2020 Dems see danger in the Mueller probe By DARREN SAMUELSOHN A staffer for Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), who is expected to join the race and has advocated for action on climate change, said he is reviewing the resolution in detail.
The resolution includes key changes from the first proposal that Ocasio-Cortez presented in November when she and dozens of activists stormed Pelosi’s Capitol Hill office. Those changes appear designed to make the Green New Deal more palatable to moderates and labor unions that are key Democratic backers.
Chiefly, the resolution calls for relying on “clean, renewable, zero-emission sources" — language that allows possible room for nuclear power and is a departure from Ocasio-Cortez’s initial call for 100 percent renewable sources such as wind and solar. The change reflects concerns from labor groups, including those that have members who work in the nuclear energy industry. Ocasio-Cortez's office also didn't rule out carbon capture and storage technology as a means of enabling the continued use of fossil fuels, though they would prefer steps like reforestation and said that carbon capture technology "to date has not proven effective."
The wording reflects that many communities revolve around fossil fuel economies and will need more time to adjust to a transition, a concern that Democratic lawmakers in the Congressional Progressive Caucus had previously raised. Provisions in the resolution such as the need to obtain consent from indigenous peoples on all decisions that affect their land — similar to First Nations in Canada — are also designed to be bulwarks against extraction.
Story Continued Below
Those assurances, however, are unlikely to please everyone.
“Our climate crisis requires that we stand up to the fossil fuel industry and ramp down our fossil fuel production, not allow it to continue its planned expansion,” David Turnbull, a spokesperson with Oil Change International, said in a statement.
If anything, I appreciate her effort. Dunno if it will fly, but something has to be done. And yes, we can absolutely create a crap ton of jobs by going green.
Any chance the Dems have to win in 2020 revolve around M4A and a Green New Deal.
However we can't allow oil barons to become renewable resources barons. The energy harvested by the GND need to be a public commodity and nowhere close to being privatized.
That’s the issue though. Unless the oil tycoons get their paws in it, then they will fight against this with everything they have. The Koch brothers, even with their support for national healthcare, will drop a billion for whoever is running on the GOP side if they don’t see a way to profit off of going green, especially if the Dems attempt to run interference.
Even a Fox News poll showed that people support raising taxes on wealthy, and support M4A as long as private insurance doesn’t go away. But this still has to be sold properly or it stands no chance.
Agreed. It's a shame that AOC isn't a little older or that Bernie isn't a bit younger. They are of the few Democrats who I could trust into not turning this into another Ponzi scheme for the rich like ACA. Hopefully by the time of the primaries the discussion about private insurance will change
It has to. Even the countries with national healthcare still have private insurance options readily accessible. So the primary candidates have to make sure not to demonize that.
It has to. Even the countries with national healthcare still have private insurance options readily accessible. So the primary candidates have to make sure not to demonize that.
I understand the need for familiarity, especially as something as unstable as medical services, but we cannot allow medicine to become even more stratified by money. Also, at one point 10, 20 years down the line, we're going to need to publicize the entire healthcare industry. Doing things like keeping private insurance not only hurts M4A in the short term, but also the long term.
Netflix pays $10 mil for distribution rights to a documentary about AOC and other progressive congresspeople. It's the most expensive documentary to be bought at Sundance.
I disagree. The rallying cry today is "medicare for all". Medicare pays 80% of major medical and leaves you with co-pays and deductibles. At the very least, private insurance would need to be available to fill those gaps and other elective surgeries should people so choose.
Now if the Dems don't actually mean "medicare for all" they need to make things more clear. The message some of them are sending now makes it look like they have no clue how medicare actually works.
Medicare would be a bottom tier, minimum coverage for all allowing citizens the right to purchase additional coverage should they so choose.
The bill would change Medicare into a universal healthcare plan, instead of a safety net for elders who are out of work. There should not be any copays or deductibles (insurance concepts that come from the auto industry and not healthcare) under M4A. It is different from Medicaid and Medicare and would require zero private insurance companies to help fund.
To me that's unrealistic. Even in Canada and other parts of the world with universal healthcare private insurance for some things are used.
This idea will never sell if you believe the average American will support their tax dollars going to fund cosmetic surgeries, transgender surgeries and many other elective surgeries.
Elective surgeries, especially sex realignment are not covered by private insurance already. Most of that stuff is paid out by the person having a surgery. I've had many friends who have paid or had someone pay for their boob jobs or nose jobs.
I think the best thing about M4A, that sets it apart from other unh plans, is that it offers dental and vision insurance as well.
But things like deductibles and copays are auto insurance concepts so people don't damage their car just get a new one. The concepts are so out of place in the medical field.
This plan will never get the support of the American people. Even Canada does not follow such a model.
Once you cover everything 100% you're entering a territory that's not sustainable.
Canada also developed their model near 40 years ago. The world wide web is newer than Canada's health insurance model. Who cares that they don't cover dental and vision? Do you think private dental and vision is why Canada's healthcare system stays afloat? How do you think private insurance operates in places with Universal Healthcare? Do you think that fracturing insurance pools lead to lower costs?
There is a reason why that the Libertarian Think Tank said that the plan would cost 32 trillion dollars while saying that without the plan, the US would pay 35 trillion dollars over the same decade. Insurance sees the highest margins when they have a large pool of donors, which is why they constantly fight for marketshare.
You don't have to sell me on the evils of trusting and doing business with health insurance companies and big pharma. But this is a message for both you and those who feel that medicare doesn't work when they speak of the evils of "socialized medicine".
Medicare works very well. They also have a system in place where private insurance can be purchased to cover deductibles and co-pays. The cost of the supplemental plans are reasonably priced and everyone I've talked to seems content with that system. It's been proven to work and I see no factual based reason to move away from a well working model.
People talk about allowing the government controlling their healthcare but yet those very same people seem to have no problem with private insurance companies fighting against paying for procedures and approving their medications now. They face the exact same things with private insurance companies they claim they fear from the government. Quite ironic.
We're pretty much on the same page with slight differences. One thing we certainly agree on is that Americans pay the brunt of the cost of developing drugs with tax dollars then in return pay higher drug costs than anywhere else in the world. The private sector is eating the apple from both sides and something drastic needs to be done to change the current system.
Medicare works very well. They also have a system in place where private insurance can be purchased to cover deductibles and co-pays. The cost of the supplemental plans are reasonably priced and everyone I've talked to seems content with that system. It's been proven to work and I see no factual based reason to move away from a well working model.
I would go so far as to say the price is cheap. I know now others will want to come down on my head for something else lol
Quote:
We're pretty much on the same page with slight differences. One thing we certainly agree on is that Americans pay the brunt of the cost of developing drugs with tax dollars then in return pay higher drug costs than anywhere else in the world. The private sector is eating the apple from both sides and something drastic needs to be done to change the current system.
However we can't allow oil barons to become renewable resources barons. The energy harvested by the GND need to be a public commodity and nowhere close to being privatized.
This I agree with. If it's a renewable resource, then costs, once the infrastructure is in place should just be maintenance and upkeep. Which if properly done and controlled by the public, would be easily managed as well as keeping the consumer costs down in the long run.
While I am all for private companies existing and doing business for profit, certain things that are pretty much a life necessity in the modern age (utilities), should not be for profit.
She's so refreshing even if you don't agree 100% with her takes.
It'll be interesting to see her on Desus and Mero's new show, who make a hysterical comedy duo. I probably won't be able to post a link once the episode airs due to language, but I would suggest everyone on this forum who enjoys comedy, watch the show.
J\C The Cons. think she would make a great president ….. for VENEZUALA, or Russia lol
I think you mean Trump, who, like Maduro is a wannabe strongman full of gaffes, and like Juan Guaido, doesn't have the people's support. Of course Trump envisions himself as a Putin like leader.
AOC and her ilk have their first victory as Amazon pulls its plans for a New York headquarters because of them.
"Anything is possible: today was the day a group of dedicated, everyday New Yorkers & their neighbors defeated Amazon’s corporate greed, its worker exploitation, and the power of the richest man in the world."
AOC and her ilk have their first victory as Amazon pulls its plans for a New York headquarters because of them.
"Anything is possible: today was the day a group of dedicated, everyday New Yorkers & their neighbors defeated Amazon’s corporate greed, its worker exploitation, and the power of the richest man in the world."
AOC and her ilk have their first victory as Amazon pulls its plans for a New York headquarters because of them.
"Anything is possible: today was the day a group of dedicated, everyday New Yorkers & their neighbors defeated Amazon’s corporate greed, its worker exploitation, and the power of the richest man in the world."
-AOC
Great job AOC, now send Amazon to the Red States where people will work with them to create jobs and prosperity.
Then we will have plenty of income to be taxed to fund your handouts, just like we always have.
I'm confused. She didn't want the Amazon deal because of the government handout to create jobs. Yet her green deal is a government handout to create jobs.
I'm confused. She didn't want the Amazon deal because of the government handout to create jobs. Yet her green deal is a government handout to create jobs.
I'm confused. She didn't want the Amazon deal because of the government handout to create jobs. Yet her green deal is a government handout to create jobs.
You are confused.
Then enlighten me. Last I checked, the government doesn't create jobs.
I'm confused. She didn't want the Amazon deal because of the government handout to create jobs. Yet her green deal is a government handout to create jobs.
You are confused.
Then enlighten me. Last I checked, the government doesn't create jobs.
Well now I don't know where to begin So I'll make it brief, going from last point to first.
1. Socialist governments create jobs all the time. 2. The US government creates jobs, one of the main problems of the shutdown was that US employees couldn't get paid. 3. The US government creates more job for the private sector by being their R&D arm. 3. The Green New Deal is broad policy framework and isn't a concrete plan. 4. The Green New Deal isn't a tax break to create jobs, it's a public undertaking to save the US from the most disastrous effects of global warming 5. AOC's has made a point to stress that private business cannot be involved in the Green New Deal. 6. No one wants the Amazon deal for a litany of reasons, especially reasons towards privacy. The Amazon campus in Seattle is the scariest place in the world 7. No one thinks that Amazon deserves another tax break. 8. The Amazon deal would hurt NYC in the long run. 9. This is just the general things you got wrong in 4 sentences. 10. I made well over a grand today due to this deal. That's not a point, I just wanted to brag
Here's the laughable part of amazon not locating to Queens: AOC likes it, like she/they 'won' something.
She's happy that amazon decided to not locate there, because instead of giving amazon some $3 billion in tax abatement, the city and state can use that $3 billion to do other stuff.
Uh.........she doesn't understand tax abatement, does she? The city and state didn't have $3 billion they were going to give amazon. The city/state agreed to decrease their taxes by 3 billion over some period of time.
Tax abatement only occurs if there is a tax.
25,000 jobs that amazon promised will now go elsewhere. As will the construction costs, as well as housing, and everything else 25,000 good paying jobs results in.
She's happy that amazon decided to not locate there, because instead of giving amazon some $3 billion in tax abatement, the city and state can use that $3 billion to do other stuff.
She never said that. I know that you hate AOC, but why lie?
Google Announces New $1 Billion Manhattan Campus In Hudson Square BY JEN CHUNG IN NEWS ON DEC 17, 2018 9:44 AM
2018_12_googleny.jpg (Shutterstock) As local elected officials continue to raise questions about Amazon's proposed, heavily-subsidized new campus in Long Island City, tech competitor Google announced it would continue to expand its New York City footprint by 1.7 million square feet, with lease agreements in Hudson Square.
Google, which already owns 111 Eighth Avenue and bought the Chelsea Market building for $2.4 billion earlier this year, said that it hoped to occupy the two spaces on Hudson Street by 2020 and the redeveloped St. John's Terminal at 550 Washington Street by 2022. The news follows rumors that Google was looking to find space for up to 12,000 more employees in New York.
Ruth Porat, SVP and CFO of Google and its holding company Alphabet wrote a blog post explaining the deal:
Today we’re taking the next step in our commitment to our New York City presence by investing over $1 billion in capital improvements to establish a new campus, Google Hudson Square. The over 1.7 million square-foot campus is a result of lease agreements at 315 and 345 Hudson Street and a signed letter of intent at 550 Washington Street. When we came to New York City almost two decades ago, it was our first office outside of California. It’s now home to more than 7,000 employees, speaking 50 languages, working on a broad range of teams including Search, Ads, Maps, YouTube, Cloud, Technical Infrastructure, Sales, Partnerships and Research.
New York City continues to be a great source of diverse, world-class talent—that’s what brought Google to the city in 2000 and that’s what keeps us here. Earlier this year, we announced the $2.4 billion purchase of the Manhattan Chelsea Market and shared plans to lease additional space at Pier 57. We hope to start moving into the two Hudson Street buildings by 2020, followed by 550 Washington Street in 2022 once the building is complete. Google Hudson Square will be the primary location for our New York-based Global Business Organization.
Porat's blog post also detailed the company's partnerships with the community, though a recent NY Times article quoted a handful of community members who are not enamored by the tech giant; for instance, since Google offers free food to its employees, Bowery Kitchen Supplies co-owner believes his business's sandwich counter "has lost thousands of dollars a month in sales." The neighborhood, west of Soho, will also be welcoming Disney, which will be demolishing all the buildings on an entire block (bounded by Spring, Vandam, Hudson and Varick Streets) for a new 1 million square foot complex. City Winery, which occupies a two-story building at the corner of Vandam and Varick, plans to move out by January 1, 2020.
---
Look at that a multi-billion dollar company that doesn't need to pit Americans against each other to lower their tax rate. It's refreshing.
She's happy that amazon decided to not locate there, because instead of giving amazon some $3 billion in tax abatement, the city and state can use that $3 billion to do other stuff.
She never said that. I know that you hate AOC, but why lie?
She's happy that amazon decided to not locate there, because instead of giving amazon some $3 billion in tax abatement, the city and state can use that $3 billion to do other stuff.
She never said that. I know that you hate AOC, but why lie?
By the way, I don't hate her. I think her big, HUGE step from being a waitress to being in congress went to her head. She's a little too self important now.
Hey, she's getting her 15 minutes, and she's all over the news. She's relishing her new found fame. Good for her. I have a hunch it will change. She is, isn't she, one of the people that decried gov't. workers not getting paid during the shut down.........yet, she kept cashing her checks. Do I have that right?
She's happy that amazon decided to not locate there, because instead of giving amazon some $3 billion in tax abatement, the city and state can use that $3 billion to do other stuff.
She never said that. I know that you hate AOC, but why lie?
And I love the deflection and stupid inference that I hate AOC. It's weird, in the nsfw thing you claim to want a discussion. But, a 'discussion' for you is "agree with me, or I'll call you names."
She's happy that amazon decided to not locate there, because instead of giving amazon some $3 billion in tax abatement, the city and state can use that $3 billion to do other stuff.
She never said that. I know that you hate AOC, but why lie?
And I love the deflection and stupid inference that I hate AOC. It's weird, in the nsfw thing you claim to want a discussion. But, a 'discussion' for you is "agree with me, or I'll call you names."
Get a life. In no way did I call you a name or mandate that you must agree with me. I'm just wondering why you're lying about the deal.
Here's the deal from Amazon. It's not just a tax cut that they're giving Amazon, but also hundreds of millions of dollars in grant money. That's not just a tax abatement. NYC was about to start subsidizing Amazon to create jobs instead of fixing their crumbling subway system that is already overburdened.
I also find it very offensive that you're saying that I'm name calling. That is against the rules of the forum. However, I do remember two days ago when you called me an arse in not so nice terms
Maybe you should stop projecting your own posting habits onto others. That's probably why you get into more fights than Vers during football season.
Amazon will receive performance-based direct incentives of $1.525 billion based on the company creating 25,000 jobs in Long Island City. This includes a refundable tax credit through New York State’s Excelsior Program of up to $1.2 billion calculated as a percentage of the salaries Amazon expects to pay employees over the next 10 years, which equates to $48,000 per job for 25,000 jobs with an average wage of over $150,000; and a cash grant from Empire State Development of $325 million based on the square footage of buildings occupied in the next 10 years. Amazon will receive these incentives over the next decade based on the incremental jobs it creates each year and as it reaches building occupancy targets. The company will separately apply for as-of-right incentives including New York City’s Industrial & Commercial Abatement Program (ICAP) and New York City’s Relocation and Employment Assistance Program (REAP).
And, once again, here - your quote:
Quote:
She never said that. I know that you hate AOC, but why lie?
Amazon will receive performance-based direct incentives of $1.525 billion based on the company creating 25,000 jobs in Long Island City. This includes a refundable tax credit through New York State’s Excelsior Program of up to $1.2 billion calculated as a percentage of the salaries Amazon expects to pay employees over the next 10 years, which equates to $48,000 per job for 25,000 jobs with an average wage of over $150,000; and a cash grant from Empire State Development of $325 million based on the square footage of buildings occupied in the next 10 years. Amazon will receive these incentives over the next decade based on the incremental jobs it creates each year and as it reaches building occupancy targets. The company will separately apply for as-of-right incentives including New York City’s Industrial & Commercial Abatement Program (ICAP) and New York City’s Relocation and Employment Assistance Program (REAP).
And, once again, here - your quote:
Quote:
She never said that. I know that you hate AOC, but why lie?
Alright man, how do I order you hooked on phonics?
Originally Posted By: CHSDawg
Here's the deal from Amazon. It's not just a tax cut that they're giving Amazon, but also hundreds of millions of dollars in grant money. That's not just a tax abatement. NYC was about to start subsidizing Amazon to create jobs instead of fixing their crumbling subway system that is already overburdened.
If I buy it, you better promise me that you'll use it.
Amazon will receive performance-based direct incentives of $1.525 billion based on the company creating 25,000 jobs in Long Island City. This includes a refundable tax credit through New York State’s Excelsior Program of up to $1.2 billion calculated as a percentage of the salaries Amazon expects to pay employees over the next 10 years, which equates to $48,000 per job for 25,000 jobs with an average wage of over $150,000; and a cash grant from Empire State Development of $325 million based on the square footage of buildings occupied in the next 10 years. Amazon will receive these incentives over the next decade based on the incremental jobs it creates each year and as it reaches building occupancy targets. The company will separately apply for as-of-right incentives including New York City’s Industrial & Commercial Abatement Program (ICAP) and New York City’s Relocation and Employment Assistance Program (REAP).
And, once again, here - your quote:
Quote:
She never said that. I know that you hate AOC, but why lie?
Alright man, how do I order you hooked on phonics?
Originally Posted By: CHSDawg
Here's the deal from Amazon. It's not just a tax cut that they're giving Amazon, but also hundreds of millions of dollars in grant money. That's not just a tax abatement. NYC was about to start subsidizing Amazon to create jobs instead of fixing their crumbling subway system that is already overburdened.
If I buy it, you better promise me that you'll use it.
Says the guy that said "she never said that"......even after being given the link to her saying it. Twice. A VIDEO of her saying it.
Yet, you resort to some lame attempt at discrediting me by saying I need hooked on phonics? Sad.
Why don't you buy yourself a 'Hooked on video" tape?
Oh, about the 'grant money". Turns out NY and NYC can keep their grant money. And miss out on 25,000 jobs. Good paying jobs, from what I read. (you do know that the tax abatements were based on actual jobs created, right?)
Maybe NY and NYC should use some of that grant money to fix their problems?
You need Hooked On Phonics, because every time you respond to me, you don't read my posts.
Here's your post:
Quote:
She's happy that amazon decided to not locate there, because instead of giving amazon some $3 billion in tax abatement, the city and state can use that $3 billion to do other stuff.
Uh.........she doesn't understand tax abatement, does she? The city and state didn't have $3 billion they were going to give amazon. The city/state agreed to decrease their taxes by 3 billion over some period of time.
This is not true, because it's not just a tax abatement but actual cash in hand grant money. Nor did she mention the tax abatement in YOUR weird video. Ever hear of youtube? Why am I at a search page?
Anyway, PM me your address and email and I'll send you the Hooked on Phonics collection so that you can read.
On abc news tonight, they had a clip of her bragging about being able to spend the money on other things to help locals.
You mean the money they don't have, and won't get? You can't not abate taxes on taxes that aren't there. Your net would be zero.
Did you read the proposal? Before any jobs or abatement are created, the governments would give Amazon 300 million dollars to build their HQ... Why you always lying?
You need Hooked On Phonics, because every time you respond to me, you don't read my posts.
No offense, but phonics is about sounding words out w/the alphabet.
I think you should be referring to reading comprehension and reading fluency rather than phonics.
Good to know. I never used it, so I have no idea. I just remember their commercials when I was growing up. Do you know of any reading comprehension programs I could buy for Arch?
I think a national emergency should be called to end tax abatement for big business. Local and state citizens are funding corporate welfare for big business and taking on the responsibility of their tax burden while schools, teachers and small businesses suffer for it.
She just cost her district 25.000 jobs at at and average pay of 150.000 per year and shes proud of it and the libs here are defending this anti semite socio commie.SMH.
Yeah, let's give corporations who already don't pay any income taxes 3 billion more in tax abatements.
and 300 mil in cash.
The funny thing is, they might have a point if it was happening in a place with a sub 10k population community. Instead they're talking about the most populous city and metro area in America.
25.000 job at 150.000 per year ,and you are using a dumb lib talking point of corp. welfare cause your guys effed this economic boom up for NYC. I guess with their sickening infanticide laws,and their hatred of successful people is coming back to bite you guys sooner than I thought
I didn't vote for anyone in New York. So they're not "my guys".
It's funny that you think corporations who make billions in profits yet pay nothing in taxes, should also be given three billion in tax breaks to bring jobs to an area and have communities and states bid against each other to do this.
Hatred of successful people? No, but they should be required to pay their fair share just like everyone else.
But when you fly into a rant like you just did, common sense escapes you.
She's happy that amazon decided to not locate there, because instead of giving amazon some $3 billion in tax abatement, the city and state can use that $3 billion to do other stuff.
She never said that. I know that you hate AOC, but why lie?
By the way, I don't hate her. I think her big, HUGE step from being a waitress to being in congress went to her head. She's a little too self important now.
Hey, she's getting her 15 minutes, and she's all over the news. She's relishing her new found fame. Good for her. I have a hunch it will change. She is, isn't she, one of the people that decried gov't. workers not getting paid during the shut down.........yet, she kept cashing her checks. Do I have that right?
And going from Reality TV Dumbass to Potus Dumbass wasn't too big of a step for Trump? LMAO@U
I agree with you on the corp. welfare and they should pay there fare share but its the price that is paid to bring to bring economic help to certain areas that need an economic boost and to help the ratings of the politicians in power left or right.
Sorry that you feel insulted with the "my guys" and it was not intended that way , my bad.
I actually dislike her foreign politics, but she's OK for a politician. I wish she'd do a lot of things a lot differently.
Yes but unless you hate her, you must be:
Originally Posted By: Dawg Duty
Not surprised CHS is all in for AOC.
This is the power of the Reptilian Brain!
Yeah, this was a problem I had during the Obama administration, that even though I really disliked him, I just had to defend from the asinine stuff coming from Cons on this board.
I agree with you on the corp. welfare and they should pay there fare share but its the price that is paid to bring to bring economic help to certain areas that need an economic boost and to help the ratings of the politicians in power left or right.
Yet if it were illegal to give these huge tax breaks to businesses worth a certain amount, we wouldn't be in this situation. I mean on some level it's almost legal extortion. I see what you're saying but places can gain an advantage by the state, local and city tax structure they have to attract business. I'm not against it for small businesses who are trying to get off the ground. They deserve our support.
Here in Tennessee they give high school graduates two free years of community college to develop an educated work force to attract business.
Quote:
Sorry that you feel insulted with the "my guys" and it was not intended that way , my bad.
Thanks. I'm just a person who feels the wealthiest in our nation should be held to the same standard as a working person is. That the more you make shouldn't mean the more your protected and shielded from paying your part. All that is accomplished by that is that local schools, roads and infrastructure suffer. The ability to hire more police officers, firefighters and pay for libraries diminish while lining the pockets of big business.
I don't see that as either a rational or logical conclusion to attaining jobs.
Your points are very thoughtful and I cant disagree with any of them maybe if they would put it to a vote on the next municipal election in the municipality in question it may not be a perfect solution but its a start. At least we be given a chance to state our opinion by ballot and not standing idly by and getting it forced upon us.
Look at how well the Foxconn deal is doing in Minnesota. Trump called it the 8th wonder of the world. I'll post an article when I get a moment later today.
Alexandria Occasional Cortex: “If we were willing to give away $3 billion for this deal, we could invest those $3 billion in our district ourselves, if we wanted to. We could hire out more teachers. We can fix our subways. We can put a lot of people to work for that money, if we wanted to."
Apparently, the socialist with her economics degree thinks tax break money exists in some bank.
Not sure what is funnier...AOC rejoicing in stupidity or seeing De Blasio in his interview on Meet the Press.
Mayor De Blasio: "That's not how this works, that's not how any of this works."
Salaries in Ocasio-Cortez’s office top out at $80,000, Trent said. That’s well below the median pay for Hill chiefs of staff at $154,634, according to the Legistorm analysis. And it’s a fraction of what experienced staffers could make in other jobs in Washington.
Trent acknowledged that some people would have to take pay cuts to work in the office. He said that was a trade-off that employees had been willing to make: “I don’t think you always put the burden on the bottom.”
I haven't found anything that says AOC is taking a pay cut in order to help pay her staff more. All the people pushing socialism expect everyone else to pay for it and are not willing to make any sacrifices themselves.
Salaries in Ocasio-Cortez’s office top out at $80,000, Trent said. That’s well below the median pay for Hill chiefs of staff at $154,634, according to the Legistorm analysis. And it’s a fraction of what experienced staffers could make in other jobs in Washington.
Trent acknowledged that some people would have to take pay cuts to work in the office. He said that was a trade-off that employees had been willing to make: “I don’t think you always put the burden on the bottom.”
I haven't found anything that says AOC is taking a pay cut in order to help pay her staff more. All the people pushing socialism expect everyone else to pay for it and are not willing to make any sacrifices themselves.
Did you know that the federal government has a budget for each Congressional offices that do not include salary for said congressperson?
This women is an imbecile, her policies are ridiculous and unattainable, and she is nothing but a walking cliche'
I wonder how long it will be before she becomes a millionaire from the green lobbyist pocketbooks.
This is from the co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, and saying what most are thinking:
Patrick Moore ‏ @EcoSenseNow Replying to @AOC
Pompous little twit. You don’t have a plan to grow food for 8 billion people without fossil fuels, or get the food into the cities. Horses? If fossil fuels were banned every tree in the world would be cut down for fuel for cooking and heating. You would bring about mass death.
Ocasio-Cortez And Her Chief Of Staff ‘Could Be Facing Jail Time’ If Their Control Over PAC Was Intentionally Hidden, Former FEC Commissioner Says
03/04/2019 | Investigative Group
Andrew Kerr | Investigative Reporter
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and a top aide appear to control an outside PAC credited with being the central force behind her June 2018 primary victory. One former Federal Election Commission member thinks there would be a “serious investigation” if a complaint were filed, noting that the probe could potentially result in civil penalties or even jail time for Ocasio-Cortez and her chief of staff. A second former commissioner said there were possibly “multiple violations of federal campaign finance law.” Justice Democrats ran campaigns for Ocasio-Cortez and 11 other Democrats, but the New York Democrat was the only one to win her general election.
Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti obtained majority control of Justice Democrats PAC in December 2017, according to archived copies of the group’s website, and the two appear to retain their control of the group, according to corporate filings obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation. If the Federal Election Commission (FEC) finds that the New York Democrat’s campaign operated in affiliation with the PAC, which had raised more than $1.8 million before her June 2018 primary, it would open them up to “massive reporting violations, probably at least some illegal contribution violations exceeding the lawful limits,” former FEC commissioner Brad Smith said.
Ocasio-Cortez never disclosed to the FEC that she and Chakrabarti, who served as her campaign chair, controlled the PAC while it was simultaneously supporting her primary campaign, and former FEC commissioners say the arrangement could lead to multiple campaign finance violations. The group backed 12 Democrats during the 2018 midterms, but Ocasio-Cortez was the only one of those to win her general election.
“If the facts as alleged are true, and a candidate had control over a PAC that was working to get that candidate elected, then that candidate is potentially in very big trouble and may have engaged in multiple violations of federal campaign finance law, including receiving excessive contributions,” former Republican FEC commissioner Hans von Spakovsky told The Daily Caller News Foundation.
And fellow former FEC commissioner Brad Smith told TheDCNF that if “a complaint were filed, I would think it would trigger a serious investigation.” He also noted that such a probe could potentially result in jail time for Ocasio-Cortez and her chief of staff, Chakrabarti.
Ocasio-Cortez And Her Chief Of Staff ‘Could Be Facing Jail Time’ If Their Control Over PAC Was Intentionally Hidden, Former FEC Commissioner Says
03/04/2019 | Investigative Group
Andrew Kerr | Investigative Reporter
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and a top aide appear to control an outside PAC credited with being the central force behind her June 2018 primary victory. One former Federal Election Commission member thinks there would be a “serious investigation” if a complaint were filed, noting that the probe could potentially result in civil penalties or even jail time for Ocasio-Cortez and her chief of staff. A second former commissioner said there were possibly “multiple violations of federal campaign finance law.” Justice Democrats ran campaigns for Ocasio-Cortez and 11 other Democrats, but the New York Democrat was the only one to win her general election.
Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti obtained majority control of Justice Democrats PAC in December 2017, according to archived copies of the group’s website, and the two appear to retain their control of the group, according to corporate filings obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation. If the Federal Election Commission (FEC) finds that the New York Democrat’s campaign operated in affiliation with the PAC, which had raised more than $1.8 million before her June 2018 primary, it would open them up to “massive reporting violations, probably at least some illegal contribution violations exceeding the lawful limits,” former FEC commissioner Brad Smith said.
Ocasio-Cortez never disclosed to the FEC that she and Chakrabarti, who served as her campaign chair, controlled the PAC while it was simultaneously supporting her primary campaign, and former FEC commissioners say the arrangement could lead to multiple campaign finance violations. The group backed 12 Democrats during the 2018 midterms, but Ocasio-Cortez was the only one of those to win her general election.
“If the facts as alleged are true, and a candidate had control over a PAC that was working to get that candidate elected, then that candidate is potentially in very big trouble and may have engaged in multiple violations of federal campaign finance law, including receiving excessive contributions,” former Republican FEC commissioner Hans von Spakovsky told The Daily Caller News Foundation.
And fellow former FEC commissioner Brad Smith told TheDCNF that if “a complaint were filed, I would think it would trigger a serious investigation.” He also noted that such a probe could potentially result in jail time for Ocasio-Cortez and her chief of staff, Chakrabarti.
So file the complaint and let's play it out. I have a feeling it wouldn't fair well.
Ocasio-Cortez And Her Chief Of Staff ‘Could Be Facing Jail Time’ If Their Control Over PAC Was Intentionally Hidden, Former FEC Commissioner Says
03/04/2019 | Investigative Group
Andrew Kerr | Investigative Reporter
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and a top aide appear to control an outside PAC credited with being the central force behind her June 2018 primary victory. One former Federal Election Commission member thinks there would be a “serious investigation” if a complaint were filed, noting that the probe could potentially result in civil penalties or even jail time for Ocasio-Cortez and her chief of staff. A second former commissioner said there were possibly “multiple violations of federal campaign finance law.” Justice Democrats ran campaigns for Ocasio-Cortez and 11 other Democrats, but the New York Democrat was the only one to win her general election.
Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti obtained majority control of Justice Democrats PAC in December 2017, according to archived copies of the group’s website, and the two appear to retain their control of the group, according to corporate filings obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation. If the Federal Election Commission (FEC) finds that the New York Democrat’s campaign operated in affiliation with the PAC, which had raised more than $1.8 million before her June 2018 primary, it would open them up to “massive reporting violations, probably at least some illegal contribution violations exceeding the lawful limits,” former FEC commissioner Brad Smith said.
Ocasio-Cortez never disclosed to the FEC that she and Chakrabarti, who served as her campaign chair, controlled the PAC while it was simultaneously supporting her primary campaign, and former FEC commissioners say the arrangement could lead to multiple campaign finance violations. The group backed 12 Democrats during the 2018 midterms, but Ocasio-Cortez was the only one of those to win her general election.
“If the facts as alleged are true, and a candidate had control over a PAC that was working to get that candidate elected, then that candidate is potentially in very big trouble and may have engaged in multiple violations of federal campaign finance law, including receiving excessive contributions,” former Republican FEC commissioner Hans von Spakovsky told The Daily Caller News Foundation.
And fellow former FEC commissioner Brad Smith told TheDCNF that if “a complaint were filed, I would think it would trigger a serious investigation.” He also noted that such a probe could potentially result in jail time for Ocasio-Cortez and her chief of staff, Chakrabarti.
You post this because presumably you think it is significant. And it may be - I am not saying one way or another.
However - there is probable cause, and testimony under oath and multiple convictions to support the allegations that Trump committed some of the same offenses, many worse - both before he ran for POTUS, during his campaign AND while in office ... and yet you choose to be blind to all of that.
I find that odd at best - hypocritical or sycophantic at worst.
If your post is to try and indicate there are bad people on both sides I would have to agree. Some intentional and some out of ignorance. And some, both.
Her not being afraid often ends with sticking her foot in her mouth, but I watched her eviscerate the equifax CEO with simple, punchy questions and I loved it.
AOC’s chief of staff ran $1M slush fund by diverting campaign cash to his own companies
by Alana Goodman
March 04, 2019 03:34 PM
Two political action committees founded by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s top aide funneled over $1 million in political donations into two of his own private companies, according to a complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission on Monday.
The cash transfers from the PACs — overseen by Saikat Chakrabarti, the freshman socialist Democrat's chief of staff — run counter to her pledges to increase transparency and reduce the influence of "dark money" in politics.
Chakrabarti's companies appear to have been set up for the sole purpose of obscuring how the political donations were used. The Trump White House in review: Week 109 Watch Full Screen to Skip Ads
The arrangement skirted reporting requirements and may have violated the $5,000 limit on contributions from federal PACs to candidates, according to the complaint filed by the National Legal and Policy Center, a government watchdog group.
Campaign finance attorneys described the arrangement as “really weird” and an indication "there’s something amiss." They said there was no way of telling where the political donations went — meaning they could have been pocketed or used by the company to pay for off-the-books campaign operations.
PACs are required to disclose how and when funds are spent, including for expenditures such as advertisements, fundraising emails, donations to candidates, and payments for events and to vendors.
The private companies to which Chakrabarti transferred the money from the PACs are not subject to these requirements.
[Also read: Poor people not allowed in AOC's luxury apartment complex]
The complaint names Ocasio-Cortez and Chakrabarti as respondents. It asks the FEC to investigate and audit the two PACs, saying they were engaged in an "an elaborate scheme to avoid proper disclosure of campaign expenditures."
Tom Anderson, director of the National Legal and Policy Center's Government Integrity Project, said: "It appears Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her associates ran an off-the-books operation to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, thus violating the foundation of all campaign finance laws: transparency."
Chakrabarti, 33, is a Harvard graduate and technology entrepreneur who became an organizer for Bernie Sanders during the socialist's 2016 presidential campaign.
He founded a PAC called Brand New Congress in 2016 and another called Justice Democrats in 2017, with the stated goal of helping elect progressive candidates to Congress. One of those candidates was Ocasio-Cortez, who, last November, age 29, became the youngest woman ever elected to Congress.
According to the Brand New Congress website, the PAC would build a "unified campaign" infrastructure including fundraising, organizing, rallies, and advertising progressive congressional candidates across the country could "plug into," saving the individual campaigns time and money.
"Our idea is really to run a single unified presidential-style campaign that is going to look a lot like the Bernie Sanders campaign,” said Chakrabarti in an interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow in May 2016. "The campaign infrastructure and fundraising is set aside from the campaigning."
In 2016 and 2017, Chakrabarti’s PACs raised about $3.3 million for the project, primarily from small donors. During this time, the committees transferred over $1 million to two shell companies controlled by Chakrabarti with names similar to one of the PACs, Brand New Campaign LLC and Brand New Congress LLC, according to federal election filings.
[Related: AOC 'living wage' rules allow her staff to dodge financial disclosure laws]
A few weeks after starting the Brand New Congress PAC, Chakrabarti formed one of the companies, Brand New Campaign LLC, in Delaware, using a registered agent service and mailbox-only address.
Over the next seven months, as small-dollar political donations poured into the PAC from progressives across the country, the committee transferred over $200,000, 82 percent of the contributions, to the company Brand New Campaign LLC. The payments were for "strategic consulting," according to federal election filings. They were sent to an apartment address listed for Chakrabarti in the Greenwich Village area of Manhattan.
In 2017, Brand New Congress PAC transferred another $240,000 to Brand New Congress LLC, also for "strategic consulting." Another PAC co-founded by Chakrabarti that year, Justice Democrats, transferred an additional $605,000 to Brand New Congress LLC in 2017.
Brand New Congress LLC does not appear to be registered in any state, according to state government records available online. It is unclear where or when it was incorporated.
Adav Noti, the senior director of the Campaign Legal Center and a former FEC lawyer, said the arrangement was highly unusual and seemed intended to obscure the destination of the funds.
"None of that makes any sense," said Noti. "I can't even begin to disentangle that. They're either confused or they're trying to conceal something."
Noti said it would be simpler to set up a consulting company and work directly with campaigns to provide services for a fee rather than creating a federal PAC and sending the money to a company controlled by the same person.
"It does seem like there's something amiss. I can only think of really two likely possibilities for this sort of pattern of disbursements," said Noti. "One is the scam PAC possibility — they're really just paying themselves and they’re concealing it by using the LLC. The other is that there’s actually another recipient, that the money is going to the LLC and then being disbursed in some other way that they want to conceal."
[Also read: Ocasio-Cortez refuses to denounce Maduro, criticizes US interventionism instead]
Bradley A. Smith, a former chairman of the FEC, said he has never seen such an arrangement. "It's a really weird situation," he said. "I see almost no way that you can do that without it being at least a reporting violation, quite likely a violation of the contribution limits. You might say from a campaign finance angle that the LLC was essentially operating as an unregistered committee."
Chakrabarti declined to comment on the FEC complaint or provide details about his companies’ financial activities. Corbin Trent, a spokesman for Ocasio-Cortez, declined to comment.
Zeynab Day, communications director for the Brand New Congress PAC, said Chakrabarti was not currently affiliated with the group and that it recently went through a "transition period." She referred questions about the LLC to Chakrabarti. “I’m unable to answer any questions about the LLC … I am not informed about them. We are not an affiliated group,” she said.
A spokesperson for Justice Democrats said he did not know why the PAC paid so much money to Chakrabarti’s LLCs. When asked what the Justice Democrats PAC does on a daily basis, he said, “It’s very clear what we do,” but declined to elaborate.
Chakrabarti founded Brand New Congress PAC, in April 2016. According to a statement released by Justice Democrats PAC last May, Chakrabarti "was the only controlling member" of the company Brand New Congress LLC and "took no salary." The statement added: "Saikat is lucky to have a small side business that generates him enough income that he is able to do all of this work as a volunteer."
You post this because presumably you think it is significant. And it may be - I am not saying one way or another.
However - there is probable cause, and testimony under oath and multiple convictions to support the allegations that Trump committed some of the same offenses, many worse - both before he ran for POTUS, during his campaign AND while in office ... and yet you choose to be blind to all of that.
I find that odd at best - hypocritical or sycophantic at worst.
I read the other day that Huckabee and others went on to Fox & Friends and called her The Manchurian Candidate. They also question why she's soo prepared with the questions she asks at hearings.
Makes me wonder if they know intelligence isn't limited to a single gender.
It's pretty funny actually. The right has elected a moron to run this country. Every time he opens his mouth whether it's the truth or a lie, they applaud. The left by contrast gets upset.
The left elected a moron at least in regards to how government actually works and every time she opens her mouth the left applaud and the right gets upset.
It's actually a lot of fun sitting back and watching it all.
Call me crazy but I don't know why Democrats aren't using AOC as a sacrificial lamb, so to speak. To me this is the perfect scenario for Democrats... to correlate Trump's stupid takes with AOC's stupid takes and say, as the Democratic Party, we don't tolerate either person, including someone in our own party...as a "this is not who we want to be as a country." approach. AOC's district will, undoubtedly, elect another Democrat and they still keep a seat.
Unless people think she is a legitimate politician then disregard this, but I can't imagine people are serious about her.
It's pretty funny actually. The right has elected a moron to run this country. Every time he opens his mouth whether it's the truth or a lie, they applaud. The left by contrast gets upset.
The left elected a moron at least in regards to how government actually works and every time she opens her mouth the left applaud and the right gets upset.
It's actually a lot of fun sitting back and watching it all.
There's some humor there, but the big picture is pretty disgusting. Political discussion has boiled down to nothing but hatred and making fun of the opposition. Just look at this forum, most of the threads are started by people who spend their time looking for "gotcha" moments to slam the other side.
Well that would be presuming there aren't a lot of things worth saying "gotcha" about.
Would you say when a president tells an obvious and blatant lie people souldn't point that out? Or when our nation takes an opposite stand on a topic that both parties have stood behind for decades we shouldn't point that out?
See, a lot of this is about perception. AOC says some pretty stupid things. I don't have an issue with people pointing that out.
Trump is a persistent liar and a disgusting human being. And I don't have a problem with people pointing that out either.
I see it more as a "look at the stupid mistake you made" to voters on both sides when people are pointing out the truth. You see it as a "gotcha" moment.
I could care less what type of person someone is if they do the job well. That goes for president.
It means nothing to me if the person is likable but they do a piss poor job (Obama) versus Trump, who isn't the most likable human being but does a great job with the economy and employment.
In case you've missed it its not just the GOP, its the entire democrat party, congress, and DOJ that behaves like idiots, wastes money, and are more interested in getting elected and taking money from political lobbyists rather than governing for the American people.
Some of you amaze me. Mueller is a Republican who was appointed by a Republican. The Justice department is ran by the Republicans and overseen by the Republicans.
I mean I guess if you think the Republicans have been out to get the Republicans, well....
It seems to this point you don't trust juries wither who convicted Republicans.
We've been told for a couple of years: Just wait for the Mueller report." "Impeach him" "He won't make it 1 year before he's impeached" "collusion", on and on for pretty much 2 1/2 years.
And, it's understandable for haters to not like what we've heard so far.
And, at least to my knowledge, the report was given to Barr, but we the people don't have details on it/about it other than no further charges. If I have that correct.
Some of you amaze me. Mueller is a Republican who was appointed by a Republican. The Justice department is ran by the Republicans and overseen by the Republicans.
I mean I guess if you think the Republicans have been out to get the Republicans, well....
It seems to this point you don't trust juries wither who convicted Republicans.
I don't care what party affiliation someone has. If they're in government, more than likely they have their own agendas they want to carry out, are bought and paid for, and are most likely corrupt. Sure, there are also honest individuals that do a good job but usually they're not the loudest speaking people in the room, and they are few and far between.
If there is probable cause that someone committed a crime and should be investigated then one should pursue. However if that probable cause doesn't exist then I'd actually say that is illegal. If it weren't then that would mean anyone could say I want an investigation right now.
Next president in office after Trump, day one I want an investigation. Doesn't matter if they are a republican or democrat, we better investigate them since we've started down that path. See how that works.
Unless people think she is a legitimate politician then disregard this, but I can't imagine people are serious about her.
Don't make fun of OCD.
It's too early to say rather she'll be good in the long run or not, she's a freshman rep who used to be a waitress before she unseated the #3 Dem in the house.
BUT I do know she is smarter than most republicans by a long shot present company included.
I like reading what you have to say Duty. It's like watching a Manson interview, you're like WTH is this but you can't stop watching.
Thanks OCD I feel the same about you. You and Clem should write sweet love letters to each other about how smart AOC is compared to GOPers. I heard on my beloved Fox news that AOC has 3million on face book. She has. been in office 2months. Pelosi has been in office 32 years and has 2 million. Tells you how smart Liberals base has become.
Another thread full of personal insults and one-sided thinking from both sides.
I don't know a lot about politics, but I think this young woman has some strengths and weaknesses.
I think she is attractive and intelligent. I think she is an expert on how to use social media. I think she is charismatic and is appealing to many people.
On the negative side, I think her decision on the Amazon deal was completely ignorant. Her quote about the world ending in 12 years was even more ignorant. I think that her stance on Student Loan forgiveness is disgraceful, but it will probably be embraced and praised by certain folks.
Summary: I don't know enough about her to make a clear-cut evaluation, but I get the feeling she is dangerous.
I like reading what you have to say Duty. It's like watching a Manson interview, you're like WTH is this but you can't stop watching.
Thanks OCD I feel the same about you. You and Clem should write sweet love letters to each other about how smart AOC is compared to GOPers. I heard on my beloved Fox news that AOC has 3million on face book. She has. been in office 2months. Pelosi has been in office 32 years and has 2 million. Tells you how smart Liberals base has become.
A very large part of her followers are GOPers with hate crushes on her. Y'all made her the phenom that she is so stop crying about her.
I keep wondering how many times she has to make GOPers attacking her look like fools before they wise up and stop talking about her. Y'all creating your own demons, lmao.
She says a lot of stuff that's just waaaay too L for me, but it's important for the party to have those voices along with the moderates. As the party wrestles with its platform and what issues should be given priority, all stuff should be on the table.
The silly, ultra-left stuff may help to move the party's bar, but won't necessarily establish it. That's how it's supposed to work. New ideas (or old ideas with new angles) enter the arena for consideration. Some get tossed. Some get re-wrapped. Some take hold. It's how a party's ideology morphs/evolves over time.
Many are holding her up as the new 'poster child' of Dem politics. She's new, she's sparkly... but she's hardly a poster child. And the press is all over her because she's the latest thing. Eventually, she'll be off the front pages and working in committees/chambers. How she performs then will tell us more about her.
One who impressed me in an interview I heard today was Lauren Underwood. Just as new as AOC, more substance and more centrist (without being GOP Lite) Her chosen profession was Nursing. She got her degree in nursing from the University of Michigan and two master's degrees from Johns Hopkins. She has the seat once held by forme SotH Dennis Hastert. Quite as you might expect, her big thing is health care. Impressive woman, impressive credentials. You should check her out.
Once you figure out Trump isn't actually a republican it may help you. He attacks everyone and anyone who doesn't follow lockstep with everything he wants or says. He's attacked some of the very people he hand picked to work for him. Just count all the Republicans he's hired that he's turned around and fired in only two years. Evidence suggest why people felt he might fire Mueller.
Once you figure out Trump isn't actually a republican it may help you. He attacks everyone and anyone who doesn't follow lockstep with everything he wants or says. He's attacked some of the very people he hand picked to work for him. Just count all the Republicans he's hired that he's turned around and fired in only two years. Evidence suggest why people felt he might fire Mueller.
Once you figure out Trump isn't actually a republican it may help you. He attacks everyone and anyone who doesn't follow lockstep with everything he wants or says. He's attacked some of the very people he hand picked to work for him. Just count all the Republicans he's hired that he's turned around and fired in only two years. Evidence suggest why people felt he might fire Mueller.
I don't know much about her other than the typical highlight stuff that gets out in the media.
She's very green, no "Green New Deal" pun intended, and I don't agree with many of the positions of hers that I have heard about, but she is a change from the old stagnant self-promoting puppets we've had.
And that change is what has been needed in our government to shake things up. Even if she never accomplishes any of her ideas, just her presence and being elected is having an affect.
The more the right piles on AOC, the more I like her. She definitely has foot to mouth disease but she is a microcosm of what we are going to see moving forward. America wants to go green, there is no intelligible reason to not go green. Americans wants universal healthcare, the only ones who don’t are deeply involved in the rhetoric of the people who have gotten wealthy off the healthcare system.
She is Donald Trump of the left. She mouths off on topics that are easily refutable too often creating the “liar, dumb, idiot, and buffoon” monikers…..but the underlying message and direction have the hearts of the American people.
j/c What I find surprising is she is a freshman representative, yet she seems to be the mouth piece of the democratic party after just 2 plus months.
She received about 15,900 votes ,BUT she did beat a 10 term rep, that only got about 11,000 votes.
She only seem like that because FOx News has made her out to be that. She is a firebrand for sure, but she's hardly the voice of the left. The left is split into factions as the right was pre-Trump and will be again when he is gone. There are many voices working with and against each other most of the time... you know, Democracy.
She's the Avenneti of congress. She not a real threat to anyone or the spokesperson of her party. It's just fun watching her get under the skin of the GOP.
Green New Deal backed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez fizzles out in the Senate as Dems accuse GOP of putting on a 'stunt' vote
The Senate fails to advance a Green New Deal resolution as Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell forces a vote.
The nonbinding measure widely criticized by Republicans calls for the U.S. to make drastic change to move away from fossil fuels and fight climate change.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer accused McConnell of putting on a "stunt" vote as he tries to put Democratic senators and 2020 presidential contenders on the record.
Jacob Pramuk | @jacobpramuk
A Green New Deal proposal backed by numerous Democrats failed to advance in the Senate on Tuesday as Democrats protested what they called a political show vote orchestrated by majority Republicans.
The nonbinding resolution, which calls on the United States to make an ambitious effort to slash its use of fossil fuels to fight climate change, fell short in a procedural vote. The Senate did not proceed to debating the measure, as 57 senators voted against it and 43 Democrats and independents who caucus with them — nearly all of the Democratic caucus — voted "present." Four senators who vote with Democrats — Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, Doug Jones and Alabama and independent Angus King of Maine — voted against the resolution.
By voting "present," Democrats hoped not to go on the record on a bill that had no realistic chance of passing, even if they support the concept of a Green New Deal. The six Democratic senators running for president next year — who co-sponsored the original resolution introduced by Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass. — did not take a position on the measure Tuesday.
Democrats have pushed for drastic action to combat climate change as the planet warms and severe weather events such as recent Midwestern flooding have devastated U.S. communities. They say the U.S. has only a limited window to combat climate change and address an existential threat.
Republicans have gleefully criticized the Green New Deal, warning about Democratic efforts to take away anything from cars to hamburgers. They accuse Democrats of a drift toward socialism spurred in part by freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., a champion of the measure in the House.
Ahead of the vote Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer accused Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of using political theater to hide his lack of a plan to address a warming planet.
"Republicans want to force this political stunt to distract from the fact that they neither have a plan nor a sense of urgency to deal with the threat of climate change. With this exercise, the Republican majority has made a mockery of the legislative process," the New York Democrat said Tuesday.
McConnell aimed to put Democrats on the record about whether they support the plan. He sees it as something that will fail to resonate with centrist or independent voters, who some senators will need to keep their seats — or win swing states in a presidential election next year.
The Kentucky Republican said Tuesday that he believes in climate change and wants to address it through unspecified "technology and innovation."
"This is nonsense," McConnell said of the Green New Deal. "And if you're going to sign on to nonsense, you ought to have to vote for nonsense."
President Donald Trump, meanwhile, plans to use the proposal against Democrats as he runs for re-election next year. Six Democratic senators — Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Kamala Harris of California, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts — are running to challenge the president next year.
During a Senate Republican policy lunch Tuesday, Trump signaled he wants to use the Green New Deal as a cudgel in 2020, according to Sen. Lindsey Graham.
"He said make sure you don't kill it too much, because I want to run against it," the South Carolina Republican said, according to NBC News.
More games from the useless GOPer Senate. McConnell won't vote to release the Mueller report but will carry out a smear campaign attempt. smh
You guys go ahead and toot your horns. McConnell admits climate change is real yet has no plan. But he's willing to shame Dems for coming up with ideas. And the hilarious demented right is worried libs want to take their cows and hamburgers... CLOWNS.
It lost 57-0 and that includes democrats. Get over it, despite it's good intentions it was a stupendously stupid proposal. When you try to pass socialism through the guise of being green.....cmon even government officials aren't that stupid.
It lost 57-0 and that includes democrats. Get over it, despite it's good intentions it was a stupendously stupid proposal. When you try to pass socialism through the guise of being green.....cmon even government officials aren't that stupid.
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.
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?
Quote:
Whereas the United States is currently experiencing several related crises, with— (1) life expectancy declining while basic needs, such as clean air, clean water, healthy food, and adequate health care, housing, transportation, and education, are inaccessible to a significant portion of the United States population; (2) a 4-decade trend of wage stagnation, deindustrialization, and antilabor policies that has led to— (A) hourly wages overall stagnating since the 1970s despite increased worker productivity; (B) the third-worst level of socioeconomic mobility in the developed world before the Great Recession; (C) the erosion of the earning and bargaining power of workers in the United States; and VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:08 Feb 08, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR109.IH HR109 kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS 4 •HRES 109 IH (D) inadequate resources for public sector workers to confront the challenges of climate change at local, State, and Federal levels; and (3) the greatest income inequality since the 1920s, with— (A) the top 1 percent of earners accruing 91 percent of gains in the first few years of economic recovery after the Great Recession; (B) a large racial wealth divide amounting to a difference of 20 times more wealth between the average white family and the average black family; and (C) a gender earnings gap that results in women earning approximately 80 percent as much as men, at the median;
Quote:
(E) to promote justice and equity by stop9 ping current, preventing future, and repairing 10 historic oppression of indigenous peoples, com11 munities of color, migrant communities, 12 deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural 13 communities, the poor, low-income workers, 14 women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with 15 disabilities, and youth (referred to in this reso16 lution as ‘‘frontline and vulnerable commu17 nities’’);
Quote:
(G) ensuring that the Green New Deal mo22 bilization creates high-quality union jobs that 23 pay prevailing wages, hires local workers, offers 24 training and advancement opportunities, and VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:08 Feb 08, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR109.IH HR109 kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS 13 •HRES 109 IH 1 guarantees wage and benefit parity for workers 2 affected by the transition;
(I) strengthening and protecting the right 8 of all workers to organize, unionize, and collec9 tively bargain free of coercion, intimidation, and 10 harassment; 11 (J) strengthening and enforcing labor, 12 workplace health and safety, antidiscrimination, 13 and wage and hour standards across all employ14 ers, industries, and sectors; 15 (K) enacting and enforcing trade rules, 16 procurement standards, and border adjustments 17 with strong labor and environmental protec18 tions— 19 (i)
Quote:
(O) providing all people of the United 13 States with— 14 (i) high-quality health care; 15 (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate 16 housing; 17 (iii) economic security; and 18 (iv) clean water, clean air, healthy and 19 affordable food, and access to nature.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
So, you're saying when the cost of labor goes up, the cost of goods doesn't?
I'm saying it's overblown.
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...
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 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.
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.
My business is online games so it has to be inexpensive as is discretionary income (if they have any) that they spend.
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.
My business is online games so it has to be inexpensive as is discretionary income (if they have any) that they spend.
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.
So, you're saying when the cost of labor goes up, the cost of goods doesn't?
I'm saying it's overblown.
Interesting. I would say it' s not overblown. That it's a fact.
Since this is your position and you claim it as fact, can you give me a factual example of how a previous raise in the minimum wage has greatly increased inflation? Because while I've heard a lot of posters make such a claim, I've never seen any factual data to back that up. Thanks in advance.
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...
Now see, this really doesn't seem to add up. Are you saying business hires more people now than they actually need to make their products? Because if they can do the same amount of production with fewer people, they're already doing it. Businesses don't hire more people than they need. That's a pure fallacy. Automation has been killing jobs for years and any time a company can replace a person with a machine, they do it. This isn't something new or anything that will be changed by a rise in the minimum wage.
Quote:
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...
While this is true, to claim that a stagnant minimum wage for a decade isn't a huge impact on those at the bottom of the economic ladder is something those not at the bottom would say.
Because if they can do the same amount of production with fewer people, they're already doing it. Businesses don't hire more people than they need. That's a pure fallacy.
Its not. My credit union serves a billion dollar corporation - they just bought out thousands of employees, and laid of hundreds more. They have told current employees to take on the extra workload, as they are not replacing those jobs.
They are busier now, than they have been in the last 3 years I have worked for the Credit Union that serves them.
So they did away with the jobs they didn't need and it has nothing to do with a raise in minimum wage. I'd be willing to wager it has something to do with technology they are now using to help streamline and simplify many of their processes.
My daughter is a CPA at Caterpillar World Headquarters. They just installed an entire new software system that accomplished pretty much the same thing.
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 never equated her to Hitler. I'm pointing out the fact that being on Time cover isn't all that special as someone made it out to be.
So they did away with the jobs they didn't need and it has nothing to do with a raise in minimum wage. I'd be willing to wager it has something to do with technology they are now using to help streamline and simplify many of their processes.
My daughter is a CPA at Caterpillar World Headquarters. They just installed an entire new software system that accomplished pretty much the same thing.
No, the people they laid off were here for 20+ years. They are ushering out the older crew who make a ton more, and saving all that money having the younger generation take on their workload for pennies on the dollar. I never said this particular scenario had anything to do with the min. wage, I was pointing out that companies do this all the time, when you said they do not.
It doesn't have anything to do with the tech, as I stated, I work for their Credit Union, I have spoke with members of their IT, HR, and Senior Leadership Executives regarding it. Its simply because they figure they can push the same workload on fewer employees. Meaning they had more employees than they originally needed if they haven't been hurt by it. So it would seem your comment was incorrect.
They are ushering out the older crew who make a ton more, and saving all that money having the younger generation take on their workload for pennies on the dollar.
So how exactly does that mean they're cutting down on employees? I mean if they're replacing older workers who made more with younger workers making less, I'm not sure what point you made at all.
They are ushering out the older crew who make a ton more, and saving all that money having the younger generation take on their workload for pennies on the dollar.
So how exactly does that mean they're cutting down on employees? I mean if they're replacing older workers who made more with younger workers making less, I'm not sure what point you made at all.
"they just bought out thousands of employees, and laid of hundreds more. They have told current employees to take on the extra workload, as they are not replacing those jobs. "
Its really funny watching these dudes who clearly struggle with women trash AOC because of the things she says, but turn into Ray Charles every time the PRESIDENT says moronic crap like this:
Donald Trump said wind turbines cause cancer. Chuck Grassley called that 'idiotic.'
They are ushering out the older crew who make a ton more, and saving all that money having the younger generation take on their workload for pennies on the dollar.
So how exactly does that mean they're cutting down on employees? I mean if they're replacing older workers who made more with younger workers making less, I'm not sure what point you made at all.
"they just bought out thousands of employees, and laid of hundreds more. They have told current employees to take on the extra workload, as they are not replacing those jobs. "
I guess you missed the part where they hired younger people to take over their jobs. Which means the number of employees would increase until such time as those people were ready to take over the position of the older, more expensive employees. It was a huge cost cutting move.
Its really funny watching these dudes who clearly struggle with women trash AOC because of the things she says, but turn into Ray Charles every time the PRESIDENT says moronic crap like this:
Donald Trump said wind turbines cause cancer. Chuck Grassley called that 'idiotic.'
Claims his dad, who was born in New York, was born in Germany.
I mean, yeah, a congressional district elected a freshman congresswoman who says some of the wall stuff. They use it as a nice deflection that they actually elected someone just as bad or worse as the president.
Its really funny watching these dudes who clearly struggle with women trash AOC because of the things she says, but turn into Ray Charles every time the PRESIDENT says moronic crap like this:
Donald Trump said wind turbines cause cancer. Chuck Grassley called that 'idiotic.'
Claims his dad, who was born in New York, was born in Germany.
I mean, yeah, a congressional district elected a freshman congresswoman who says some of the wall stuff. They use it as a nice deflection that they actually elected someone just as bad or worse as the president.
Ha! this dude loves me. I literally posted that nonsense about Trump in an earlier thread, describing at idiotic or something like that.
I'm not hiding on Trump, Swish and OCD just want me to hack for their side and I will never hack for either side.
Yet I rarely see you post about his nonsense while from all indications it looks like you obsess with the nonsense from the other side. Not to be try to be nasty or anything, but your posting sounds a lot like watching FOX News claim to be fair and balanced. The math doesn't add up.
Yet I rarely see you post about his nonsense while from all indications it looks like you obsess with the nonsense from the other side. Not to be try to be nasty or anything, but your posting sounds a lot like watching FOX News claim to be fair and balanced. The math doesn't add up.
What is there to say about it that isn't regurgitated ad nausea on this forum? When I start chiming in, it's typically because there is objectively false information being spread. Do you want me to go into a thread where Trump says something objectively false and repeat what has already been said?
Here is the problem, I simply cannot say it enough to satiate the hard lefts on this board. I'm either hacking for their side or I'm a Trumpian. So when I say Trump is objectively a liar the hard lefts will just accuse me of "playing the middle" and "being fake". If I go in and criticize Trump, they will ignore it and then when I defend him on literally not being a Russian spy (which he is certifiably not), I'm a "Trumpanzee".
Why would I subject myself to that on a regular basis? To appease people who will NEVER see anything with any semblance of balance anyway?
Yet I rarely see you post about his nonsense while from all indications it looks like you obsess with the nonsense from the other side. Not to be try to be nasty or anything, but your posting sounds a lot like watching FOX News claim to be fair and balanced. The math doesn't add up.
Nailed it. He will never admit it, that would bust his cover.
They are ushering out the older crew who make a ton more, and saving all that money having the younger generation take on their workload for pennies on the dollar.
So how exactly does that mean they're cutting down on employees? I mean if they're replacing older workers who made more with younger workers making less, I'm not sure what point you made at all.
"they just bought out thousands of employees, and laid of hundreds more. They have told current employees to take on the extra workload, as they are not replacing those jobs. "
I guess you missed the part where they hired younger people to take over their jobs. Which means the number of employees would increase until such time as those people were ready to take over the position of the older, more expensive employees. It was a huge cost cutting move.
I guess I did miss where they hired younger employees to take over the jobs they cut and the people they laid off.
Click to reveal..
Its not. My credit union serves a billion dollar corporation - they just bought out thousands of employees, and laid of hundreds more. They have told current employees to take on the extra workload, as they are not replacing those jobs.
This is what wilit said, and what I was responding to.
The way I read that, they had a lot of employees, so they cut/laid off older ones and told the younger ones basically 'do more work, cause we're not hiring people to replace the cut/laid off people."
I mean, yeah, a congressional district elected a freshman congresswoman who says some of the wall stuff. They use it as a nice deflection that they actually elected someone just as bad or worse as the president.
The fact that both sides keep defending their own by comparing them to the lowest points of the other is the reason that the lowest points keep getting lower and lower and lower..
AOC uses Twitter to blast stuff out to get her followers all worked up... some of it is decent, some of it is sensationalized, and some of it is flat out wrong...
but the fact that the right has a problem with that is somewhat hard to understand since Trump basically invented "governing by Twitter"... and his tweets fall into the same 3 categories.
Probably because it’s beyond silly to compare a Freshman Congresswoman who only represents her district to a president who is SUPPOSE to represent everyone in the country.
It would be like you complaining about a player who only represents his team, but then turning a blind eye to Goddell, who represents the entire nfl.
They’ll never come with a good enough argument to claim that’s an acceptable parallel.
They’ll never come with a good enough argument to claim that’s an acceptable parallel.
There shouldn't need to be a parallel..
AOC is in congress and should be held accountable for the things she says...
Trump is President and should be held accountable for the things he says...
I certainly agree that each should be held accountable for what they say. Sadly I think one would have to admit that one yields a lot more power to make the things he says actually come true. I believe how much power the speaker has in their position is certainly a factor in how seriously you need to take their stupidity.
Yet they hired the young people to replace the old people. It's not that complicated.
If that's how you read it, fine. MY understanding of what he wrote was this: This company has a lot of employees, old, young, and in between. They just recently got rid of some employees, and they are asking the existing employees to pick up the slack.
He didn't say they hired new ones, younger ones, re replace the ones they got rid of. They were asking the remaining employees to do more.
Does that at least make sense to you, that THAT is how I read it?
I am aware you like to argue.
Companies hire new employees all the time. I simply did not read his words as 'company got rid of hundreds of employees and replaced them with NEW younger employees by hiring new.
They got rid of employees, and are asking/demanding? the remaining employees do more. THAT is how I read it.
They’ll never come with a good enough argument to claim that’s an acceptable parallel.
There shouldn't need to be a parallel..
AOC is in congress and should be held accountable for the things she says...
Trump is President and should be held accountable for the things he says...
I certainly agree that each should be held accountable for what they say. Sadly I think one would have to admit that one yields a lot more power to make the things he says actually come true. I believe how much power the speaker has in their position is certainly a factor in how seriously you need to take their stupidity.
How much weight you choose to give it is entirely up to you... but I think we agree on the primary premise which is to stop justifying one persons stupidity with another persons stupidity.
No, the people they laid off were here for 20+ years. They are ushering out the older crew who make a ton more, and saving all that money having the younger generation take on their workload for pennies on the dollar.
This would indicate that you had to fist hire and train those younger employees in order to prepare them to fill those jobs. I'm not trying to argue or say you're wrong. All I'm saying is people can read the same words and come to a different conclusion.
Correct. And MY interpretation of what willit said was "huge company, lots of employees, old, young, and in between. And in a cost cutting move, they eliminated some several hundred employees, and are asking the employees that remain, to do more, because those jobs lost aren't being hired for."
It's a funny thing arch. We read the same thing and we arrived two different interpretations from it. I plainly said that. Yet I'm the one who seemed okay with that.
It was you who said I was the one who liked to argue. Hmmmm....
I said that we both read the same thing and came to different conclusions. I guess that's not enough for you. Some people need a good pat on the head I guess. Maybe a Scooby Snack I don't know.
Its not. My credit union serves a billion dollar corporation - they just bought out thousands of employees, and laid of hundreds more. They have told current employees to take on the extra workload, as they are not replacing those jobs.
So if I post the quote I posted earlier does it help anything? No it doesn't.
They hired and trained people to take over those jobs. Or do you think they just gave them to those younger people without training them for the jobs?
You're right. they just hired a bunch of people they didn't need in order to be social warriors and good public servants. That's how business operates.
You really need to get a grip here. The debate was about companies hiring more employees than they need.
My point is companies do not hire "extra people that they don't need". That's not how business runs.
That's why the only way to create jobs is to create a need or desire for their products. To raise wages in order to give consumers expendable income to purchase goods.
willit was saying that's not true. That his company hired a bunch of people they didn't need.
So it seems you agree that companies just go around hiring people because they enjoy spending money to hurt their profits.
You really need to get a grip here. The debate was about companies hiring more employees than they need.
My point is companies do not hire "extra people that they don't need". That's not how business runs.
That's why the only way to create jobs is to create a need or desire for their products. To raise wages in order to give consumers expendable income to purchase goods.
willit was saying that's not true. That his company hired a bunch of people they didn't need.
So it seems you agree that companies just go around hiring people because they enjoy spending money to hurt their profits.
Yeah, sure they do.
Even you know that's not true.
But I love it when you get on these tangents.
Well lets see, they had X amount of employees, then lowered the amount of employees, yet are still producing the same amount of work output with the lower number. Meaning, originally - they hired more employees than they needed.
So this wasn't a plan? They didn't hire the younger workers with the plan of replacing the older workers with those younger workers? How could they have trained these younger workers and prepared them to take over those jobs had they not have hired them?
So they hired more workers than they needed to train those workers to take over for older, more expensive workers. Ending in a plan to cut the work force.
It sounds like for this job and plan to work, they did need to hire those younger workers.
Sure I do. You have to hire the people you plan to use to replace the other people with. It's not complicated. If you plan to replace the older workers with cheaper, younger workers, those workers must be hired and trained to do those jobs. Once they replace those older workers, you just cut your employees while accomplishing the same work.
So this wasn't a plan? They didn't hire the younger workers with the plan of replacing the older workers with those younger workers? How could they have trained these younger workers and prepared them to take over those jobs had they not have hired them?
So they hired more workers than they needed to train those workers to take over for older, more expensive workers. Ending in a plan to cut the work force.
It sounds like for this job and plan to work, they did need to hire those younger workers.
That wasn't only scenario I presented. Maybe you should read the board.
They bought out the older employees and dispersed the workload to the employees still here.
If the employees still here are able to produce the workload that the employees who were bought out did, along with their duties - then they had too many employees.
But let's get down to what the original question and premise was based on. I said employers do not hire employees that they don't need. So no matter which perspective one sees it from, you would have to believe at the time they hired all of these people, they didn't hire them because they felt they needed them. And I still stand by the premise that companies simply don't do that.
Now the company you work for may have taken a look at a different company that gave them cause to believe they could get away with less employees now and they are walking down that path. But that still doesn't change the fact that they didn't have all of those other employees because they didn't think at the time they were hired that they needed to hire them.
And that was the entire point all along.
Downsizing became a very popular way for companies to cut costs a very long time ago. But that doesn't change the fact that those in charge felt the need to hire those employees at the time they were hired.
She knows how to get under their skin. The GOP sheep hate a 27 year old women who knows how to ask a question they can’t answer or had no idea was coming.
Sure I do. You have to hire the people you plan to use to replace the other people with. It's not complicated. If you plan to replace the older workers with cheaper, younger workers, those workers must be hired and trained to do those jobs. Once they replace those older workers, you just cut your employees while accomplishing the same work.
Or your business got bigger, so you hire more people to handle the increase in business, some of whom are younger cheaper workers, and then over time, business slowed down again, so you have to cut costs. And you cut the older more expensive workers.
You didn't hire the younger workers at the time with the sole purpose of replacing the older workers.
I don't really know where this should go but I'll stick it in here relating to AOC since she's off her rocker and believes in bad socialist policies. Got to love the top down, planned systems causing classic shortages and long wait times. And they wonder why people fly to other countries such as the US to get operations.
LONDO (XINHUA) - Thousands of elderly people in Britain are left to go blind because of rationing of eye surgery in the National Health Service (NHS), a report revealed on Saturday (April 6).
The Times newspaper said a survey by the Royal College of Ophthalmologists (RCO) found tens of thousands of elderly people are left struggling to see because of an NHS cost-cutting drive that relies on them dying before they can qualify for cataract surgery.
The survey has found that the NHS has ignored instructions to end cataract treatment rationing in defiance of official guidance two years ago.
The RCO said its survey has found 62 per cent of eye units retain policies that require people's vision to have deteriorated below a certain point before surgery is funded.
With more than 400,000 cataract operations carried out each year, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) concluded that there was no justification for policies that denied patients cataract removal surgery until they could barely see.
The RCO said that refusal to fund surgery was insulting and called into question the entire system through which the NHS approves treatments.
Ms Helen Lee of the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) said: "Cataracts can have a dramatic impact on someone's ability to lead a full and independent life, potentially stopping them from driving and increasing their chance of serious injury by falling. The NICE guidelines make it clear cataract surgery is highly cost effective and should not be rationed. It is nonsensical for clinical commissioning groups to deny patients this crucial treatment."
Ms Julie Wood, CEO of NHS Clinical Commissioners, which represents local funding bodies, defended the restrictions.
She told the Times: "NICE guidance is not mandatory and clinical commissioners must have the freedom to make clinically led decisions that are in the best interests of both individual patients and their wider local populations. The NHS does not have unlimited resources."
I think you need to remember how this discussion began. I said that companies don't hire employees they don't feel the need to hire. The response was, "Nuh Uh my company just laid off a bunch of people."
I was told they were replaced by younger, cheaper people that were currently with the company. At some point these younger employees had to be hired and trained to take over the higher positions. You don't just put some entry level employee into a higher, more skilled position without some plan in place to help make that happen.
How anyone can support Trump and then point the finger at the other side being "off there rocker" is beyond me. I'm going to need to see the orange of your theory.
It's because the entire democrat party is racist and takes advantage of African Americans and have continued to do so for years. They take them and their vote for granted every single time. They pander to them and play race politics.
You might be surprised at my answer. But because you asked, you deserve an honest answer from someone who actually knows the whys and wherefores... and has spent 60+ years living them in This American Life.
It may take a day or two, but I'll see you in your PM Inbox. Let's have a talk, OK?
Strictly anecdotal. I grew up in a working class neighborhood in Cleveland. Over the course of my life I've lived in rough areas and was fortunate to go to private schools thanks to Football and my mother. I never quite understood why I did it, but I mimicked all sorts of things, from dialect all the way to other people’s laughs. Long after being with someone I would find myself emulating their specific laugh, I would catch myself doing it without intending to do it. I literally called myself a chameleon when I was young, it was the only thing that seemed close.
It did not matter which group it was, blacks, jews, PR’s, rich folk, poor folk I would unconsciously begin to emulate their dialect the more time I spent with them. It really began to stand out to me when I brought my then girlfriend now wife home with me. I knew that how I spoke changed when I was back in the neighborhood where I grew up but to what extent even I was unaware. There is a guy that works for me, he’s Latino of some sort and when I hear the slang that comes out of my mouth when yucking it up with him it gives me pause because I can hear it but it wasn’t contrived it just sort of comes out as a bonding tool.
At the end of the day from the best I can gather it’s a subconscious assimilation. I honestly don’t think it’s as nefarious as people think, when you’re from a diverse area you tend to pick this stuff up from each other. It’s like a giant melting pot in your brain and sometimes it just happens.
Now Hilary Clinton and her hot sauce schtick was so contrived it deserved mocking. I think SOME of them may be doing it on purpose, but why any politician would willfully expose themselves to something like this leads me to believe it is not intentional.
Strictly anecdotal. I grew up in a working class neighborhood in Cleveland. Over the course of my life I've lived in rough areas and was fortunate to go to private schools thanks to Football and my mother. I never quite understood why I did it, but I mimicked all sorts of things, from dialect all the way to other people’s laughs. Long after being with someone I would find myself emulating their specific laugh, I would catch myself doing it without intending to do it. I literally called myself a chameleon when I was young, it was the only thing that seemed close.
It did not matter which group it was, blacks, jews, PR’s, rich folk, poor folk I would unconsciously begin to emulate their dialect the more time I spent with them. It really began to stand out to me when I brought my then girlfriend now wife home with me. I knew that how I spoke changed when I was back in the neighborhood where I grew up but to what extent even I was unaware. There is a guy that works for me, he’s Latino of some sort and when I hear the slang that comes out of my mouth when yucking it up with him it gives me pause because I can hear it but it wasn’t contrived it just sort of comes out as a bonding tool.
At the end of the day from the best I can gather it’s a subconscious assimilation. I honestly don’t think it’s as nefarious as people think, when you’re from a diverse area you tend to pick this stuff up from each other. It’s like a giant melting pot in your brain and sometimes it just happens.
Now Hilary Clinton and her hot sauce schtick was so contrived it deserved mocking. I think SOME of them may be doing it on purpose, but why any politician would willfully expose themselves to something like this leads me to believe it is not intentional.
I have never really picked up others accents, however I would pick up the terms and words others use.
For instance:
I used to visit my aunt in New Orleans ever summer. I wouldn't get a southern twang, but I would pick up the way they talked. When speaking to an elder, instead of saying, Frank....you would say Mr. Frank. Amy, Miss Amy. etc. I would pick that up easily and then I would lose it when I got back home.
Or depending on where I am I will soda or pop.
As far as my accent goes, I grew up in Florida until I was 8, and Pittsburgh area until now. But my parents are all from Cleveland (I was born in Cleveland but we moved when I was 1). My friends say I sound like I am from Cleveland, but when I am in Cleveland with family there, they say I sound like I am from Pittsburgh.
I do not think its an intentional thing that AOC did (and everyone knows I am not fan of her). I feel its unconsciousness that we have to fit in, we want to feel part of the group we are with, so we talk and act differently, not knowingly. JMO.
It's because the entire democrat party is racist and takes advantage of African Americans and have continued to do so for years. They take them and their vote for granted every single time. They pander to them and play race politics.
It's because the entire democrat party is racist and takes advantage of African Americans and have continued to do so for years. They take them and their vote for granted every single time. They pander to them and play race politics.
Will, while I would agree with you that some people pick up accents, inflections, or sayings over time, this was a speech given in ny, by a newyorker. There wouldn't be enough time for her to pick up a new accent. Therefore, it was practiced.
No, that's what he said and those who heard it know that. It's why a man like David Duke, former head of the KKK said this......
"Why we voted for Donald Trump": David Duke explains the white supremacist Charlottesville protests
David Duke, the former KKK grand wizard, is unambiguous about what Saturday’s alt-right and neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, means to him: It’s the fulfillment of President Donald Trump’s vision for America.
“We are determined to take our country back,” Duke said from the rally, calling it a “turning point.” “We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That’s what we believed in. That’s why we voted for Donald Trump, because he said he’s going to take our country back.”
The Charlottesville rally is nominally about the removal of a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee rather than anything in the Trump administration. But Duke was an enthusiastic supporter of Trump as far back as the Republican primary in 2016, and Trump’s reluctance to disavow that support was, briefly, a big issue.
Duke has remained a faithful Trump supporter since then, insisting that the president-elect’s policies line up with the former KKK leader’s vision for America.
He was less happy with Trump’s vague tweet condemning the violence later Saturday afternoon:
David Duke @DrDavidDuke
I would recommend you take a good look in the mirror & remember it was White Americans who put you in the presidency, not radical leftists. Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
We ALL must be united & condemn all that hate stands for. There is no place for this kind of violence in America. Lets come together as one!
Sure, later Trump did his best to walk back his comments, but he got his message across to a certain portion of his base. The rest of his base? They're still trying to play ignorant about it.
Ridiculous take Pit. Trump can't help who votes for him. I'm sure Sharpton and Faracan voted for Obama. I'm sure a goofball like Duke voted for Trump because Trump leans to the right. Did you think Duke would maybe vote for Bernie?
Ridiculous take Pit. Trump can't help who votes for him. I'm sure Sharpton and Faracan voted for Obama. I'm sure a goofball like Duke voted for Trump because Trump leans to the right. Did you think Duke would maybe vote for Bernie?
I agree 100%. Trump can't be held responsible for Duke voting for him. They just have very similar worldviews is all. And I doubt Duke would vote for a Jew.
Ridiculous take Pit. Trump can't help who votes for him. I'm sure Sharpton and Faracan voted for Obama. I'm sure a goofball like Duke voted for Trump because Trump leans to the right. Did you think Duke would maybe vote for Bernie?
I think both extremes have people they vote for. But I do believe my point in the discussion still stands. Trump's comment about what happened in Charlottesville bolstered what people like Duke believe. That their views are just fine. That Trump sees their views just as valid as those who stand against bigotry and hatred.
I agree those on the extreme right will always vote Republican and those on the extreme left will always vote Democrat.
But never, since George Wallace have I seen a GOP president pander to racists like the comment Trump made after Charlottesville. That's the point I was making.
Pretty terrible. I have a 6 year old and 9 year old who want to say they hate Trump ....when asked why - because all the kids at school say that. First time I heard them voice an opinion I asked them what Trump's economic policy was. . . what his record on unemployment was ... what his foreign policy was ... Of course each time the answer was "I don't know" .... to which I advised until they knew some of what they were talking about when it came to politics, and could answer or debate on some substance, do not follow the crowd. We have pro Trump friends and their kids are "pro Trump" .... what are you going to do? Upset them or have a fight because you think you don't like POTUS and someone else does?
SMH - sure, I bet plenty think this is harmless fun. They might feel differently if a 8 ear old kid was doing skits about what a corrupt, lying buffoon Trump is.
Pretty terrible. I have a 6 year old and 9 year old who want to say they hate Trump ....when asked why - because all the kids at school say that. First time I heard them voice an opinion I asked them what Trump's economic policy was. . . what his record on unemployment was ... what his foreign policy was ... Of course each time the answer was "I don't know" .... to which I advised until they knew some of what they were talking about when it came to politics, and could answer or debate on some substance, do not follow the crowd. We have pro Trump friends and their kids are "pro Trump" .... what are you going to do? Upset them or have a fight because you think you don't like POTUS and someone else does?
Oh great. Now Pelosi will want to lower the voting age to 6yo.
SMH - sure, I bet plenty think this is harmless fun. They might feel differently if a 8 ear old kid was doing skits about what a corrupt, lying buffoon Trump is.
Child abuse!... making that child act stupid for the GOPers to giggle about. I'd lay odds that AOC is much smarter than you and would handle you in a debate on anything political without looking away from her phone.
Pretty terrible. I have a 6 year old and 9 year old who want to say they hate Trump ....when asked why - because all the kids at school say that. First time I heard them voice an opinion I asked them what Trump's economic policy was. . . what his record on unemployment was ... what his foreign policy was ... Of course each time the answer was "I don't know" .... to which I advised until they knew some of what they were talking about when it came to politics, and could answer or debate on some substance, do not follow the crowd. We have pro Trump friends and their kids are "pro Trump" .... what are you going to do? Upset them or have a fight because you think you don't like POTUS and someone else does?
SMH - sure, I bet plenty think this is harmless fun. They might feel differently if a 8 ear old kid was doing skits about what a corrupt, lying buffoon Trump is.
Or how he looks at girls their age on the escalator and says he'll be dating them in a few years... smh. I can see why they line their kids up to worship the Alt-Right.
Child abuse!... making that child act stupid for the GOPers to giggle about. I'd lay odds that AOC is much smarter than you and would handle you in a debate on anything political without looking away from her phone.
Child abuse!... making that child act stupid for the GOPers to giggle about. I'd lay odds that AOC is much smarter than you and would handle you in a debate on anything political without looking away from her phone.
AOC is a FRIGGIN idiot! Back on iggy for you...
That’s the GOPer spirt. Hating on strong powerful women. Bless your heart. Your mother sould be so proud.
Pretty terrible. I have a 6 year old and 9 year old who want to say they hate Trump ....when asked why - because all the kids at school say that. First time I heard them voice an opinion I asked them what Trump's economic policy was. . . what his record on unemployment was ... what his foreign policy was ... Of course each time the answer was "I don't know" .... to which I advised until they knew some of what they were talking about when it came to politics, and could answer or debate on some substance, do not follow the crowd. We have pro Trump friends and their kids are "pro Trump" .... what are you going to do? Upset them or have a fight because you think you don't like POTUS and someone else does?
SMH - sure, I bet plenty think this is harmless fun. They might feel differently if a 8 ear old kid was doing skits about what a corrupt, lying buffoon Trump is.
They wouldn’t feel any differently, but would still slam the kid and parents into oblivion. I mean come on...they called the Obama family monkeys in the WH.
Pretty terrible. I have a 6 year old and 9 year old who want to say they hate Trump ....when asked why - because all the kids at school say that. First time I heard them voice an opinion I asked them what Trump's economic policy was. . . what his record on unemployment was ... what his foreign policy was ... Of course each time the answer was "I don't know" .... to which I advised until they knew some of what they were talking about when it came to politics, and could answer or debate on some substance, do not follow the crowd. We have pro Trump friends and their kids are "pro Trump" .... what are you going to do? Upset them or have a fight because you think you don't like POTUS and someone else does?
SMH - sure, I bet plenty think this is harmless fun. They might feel differently if a 8 ear old kid was doing skits about what a corrupt, lying buffoon Trump is.
They wouldn’t feel any differently, but would still slam the kid and parents into oblivion. I mean come on...they called the Obama family monkeys in the WH.
I don't want to comment too much on the Political forums because my views aren't very well received, but I am appalled by the video of the little girl who impersonated AOC.
Everyone is entitled to their own political views, but teaching your children to mock others who are different from you is very disturbing. The girl was a pretty good actor and intelligent, but it was obvious she was reading the script and was coached on body language. That's really scary to think about.
My parents encouraged my brother and I to educate ourselves about politics, but never tried to influence us. My brother was very conservative while I was more liberal. Likewise, my wife and I raised our children to search for the truth and not allow bias to influence their opinions. One is liberal and the other is more moderate.
I think teaching your children to believe in disliking and belittling another side is wrong. I feel sorry for that little girl.
Trump has normalized mockery and bullying. If you are on the right you are either good with that or turn a blind eye to it. Some people look at what they did with this child as good fun. I think people like you or me who let their kids make up their own minds as adults on things like politics and religion are the exception not the rule on both sides.
Yeah I am always disgusted when people clearly train children on their stupid political opinions. I remember the "F" video that feminists coached their children to basically be obnoxious. Google "Potty mouthed princess video" if you've never seen it. Disgusting.
Yeah I am always disgusted when people clearly train children on their stupid political opinions. I remember the "F" video that feminists coached their children to basically be obnoxious. Google "Potty mouthed princess video" if you've never seen it. Disgusting.
That video was horrible. Had never seen it. They took a good message and made filth with it by using those little girls that way.
Pretty terrible. I have a 6 year old and 9 year old who want to say they hate Trump ....when asked why - because all the kids at school say that. First time I heard them voice an opinion I asked them what Trump's economic policy was. . . what his record on unemployment was ... what his foreign policy was ... Of course each time the answer was "I don't know" .... to which I advised until they knew some of what they were talking about when it came to politics, and could answer or debate on some substance, do not follow the crowd. We have pro Trump friends and their kids are "pro Trump" .... what are you going to do? Upset them or have a fight because you think you don't like POTUS and someone else does?
SMH - sure, I bet plenty think this is harmless fun. They might feel differently if a 8 ear old kid was doing skits about what a corrupt, lying buffoon Trump is.
I agree with you. I find no humor or value in people using young kids as props to make a political statement when the child almost certainly doesn't understand what they are standing up for (or against)...
I'd lay odds that AOC is much smarter than you and would handle you in a debate on anything political without looking away from her phone.
AOC has done nothing to lead me to believe that she is all that intelligent.. winning a district where a glass of water could be elected if it had a D beside it isn't all that impressive... and I've heard some of her gaffes in speaking which she has blamed on youth and inexperience.. I don't think she's stupid but I'm not sold yet on her being of above average intelligence..
at this point, there's no doubt in my mind that the dudes trashing AOC are the same kind of guys who whine about women not being into them because they are "nice guys".
bunch of beta males needing to trash AOC with typical woman jokes because they lack self esteem themselves.
oh well, i cant empathize because i have no idea what being a ugly low self esteem man feels like.
You're a funny guy. Sounds like you are trying to label anyone who has enough common sense to see she isn't the smartest knife in the drawer.
Unlike some, I'm happy to point out stupidity on both sides of the political aisle without trying to make it sound like there's something wrong with people who have a firm grasp of the obvious.
fake news. i can dislike her policies, and still not like it when people are clearly attacking her because she's a woman, amongst many things. the level on insecurity amongst these dudes would make jordan peterson proud.
these dudes aint making stupid jokes about Trump, though. and its pretty clear why.
again, if you have a problem, put me on ignore, block me on FB, and stop responding to me on DT. the more you and i interact, the more its clear we have little in common.
these dudes aint making stupid jokes about Trump, though. and its pretty clear why.
Trump is the classic high school bully who uses his wealth and fame to create bluster and bravado in order to mask some very serious insecurities.. I thought everybody knew that.
these dudes aint making stupid jokes about Trump, though. and its pretty clear why.
Trump is the classic high school bully who uses his wealth and fame to create bluster and bravado in order to mask some very serious insecurities.. I thought everybody knew that.
apparently not. there's atleast 60 mill people in this country who certainly dont see it that way.
these dudes aint making stupid jokes about Trump, though. and its pretty clear why.
Trump is the classic high school bully who uses his wealth and fame to create bluster and bravado in order to mask some very serious insecurities.. I thought everybody knew that.
apparently not. there's atleast 60 mill people in this country who certainly dont see it that way.
Not 60 million. I know people who voted for him and still support despite believe that about his character.
You didn't ask me, but Pit responded to my post about my disdain for using kids to make a political point........so, I will answer.
I don't care which way you lean, brainwashing your children to believe the same way you do about political or ideological issues is wrong.
Can you brainwash your kids to be Browns fans?
No. While my daughter is a Brown's fan, my son is a Steelers' fan, as is his mother.
The rightful goal of a parent is to introduce your children to as much information as you can and encourage them to have an open mind and then trust them to make up their own minds on these issues.
Coaching your children to hate certain groups due to bias is a detriment to your children and limits their growth and their productivity as citizens.
You didn't ask me, but Pit responded to my post about my disdain for using kids to make a political point........so, I will answer.
I don't care which way you lean, brainwashing your children to believe the same way you do about political or ideological issues is wrong.
Can you brainwash your kids to be Browns fans?
No. While my daughter is a Brown's fan, my son is a Steelers' fan, as is his mother.
The rightful goal of a parent is to introduce your children to as much information as you can and encourage them to have an open mind and then trust them to make up their own minds on these issues.
Coaching your children to hate certain groups due to bias is a detriment to your children and limits their growth and their productivity as citizens.
Ok, but if you introduced your kids to as much information as possible, how could they be Steeler fans?
Classic! and you know it cut to the quick too. 
