Current Events > Right wing outlets continue to piss their pants over Ocasio-Cortez

(+) Yeah! (+)

How long are people really going to go on saying "no plan to pay for it" when there is one and they talk about it all the time?
---

ledbowman posted...

How long are people really going to go on saying "no plan to pay for it" when there is one and they talk about it all the time?

what is her plan to pay for it?
---

AlephZero posted...

ledbowman posted...

How long are people really going to go on saying "no plan to pay for it" when there is one and they talk about it all the time?

what is her plan to pay for it?

probably take even more earnings from the productive members of society so that we can subsidize bad behaviors like obesity, smoking, single motherhood, etc.
---

Why do people like her? SHE has no good qualities
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

bad behaviors like [...] single motherhood

---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

AlephZero posted...

ledbowman posted...

How long are people really going to go on saying "no plan to pay for it" when there is one and they talk about it all the time?

what is her plan to pay for it?

probably take even more earnings from the productive members of society so that we can subsidize bad behaviors like obesity, smoking, single motherhood, etc.

Lol yeah, CEOs and wall street banker types are really productive members of society.
---

ScazarMeltex posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

AlephZero posted...

ledbowman posted...

How long are people really going to go on saying "no plan to pay for it" when there is one and they talk about it all the time?

what is her plan to pay for it?

probably take even more earnings from the productive members of society so that we can subsidize bad behaviors like obesity, smoking, single motherhood, etc.

Lol yeah, CEOs and wall street banker types are really productive members of society.

oh are you back to pretending that CEOs and bankers make enough money to fund all of that?
---

ScazarMeltex posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

AlephZero posted...

ledbowman posted...

How long are people really going to go on saying "no plan to pay for it" when there is one and they talk about it all the time?

what is her plan to pay for it?

probably take even more earnings from the productive members of society so that we can subsidize bad behaviors like obesity, smoking, single motherhood, etc.

Lol yeah, CEOs and wall street banker types are really productive members of society.

They make money thats what matter

Production is for the lowly people. Think of those construction and chefs we look down on. I stick my nose up to blue collar folks
---

shockthemonkey posted...

AlephZero posted...

ledbowman posted...

How long are people really going to go on saying "no plan to pay for it" when there is one and they talk about it all the time?

what is her plan to pay for it?

Tax corporation and the 1% at higher rates and close corporate loopholes that allow money to be stashed in places like the Cayman Islands

Whether you agree with it or not, ignoring it is dumb as fuck

That won't even come close to paying for healthcare for everyone, housing for everyone, jobs for everyone, free college for everyone, and forgiving everyone's student loan debts.
---

I would "remind" everyone about cutting defense but they already know it.
---

knuxnole posted...

Why do people like her? SHE has no good qualities

You ask that when Donald Trump is in office
---

shockthemonkey posted...

AlephZero posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

AlephZero posted...

ledbowman posted...

How long are people really going to go on saying "no plan to pay for it" when there is one and they talk about it all the time?

what is her plan to pay for it?

Tax corporation and the 1% at higher rates and close corporate loopholes that allow money to be stashed in places like the Cayman Islands

Whether you agree with it or not, ignoring it is dumb as fuck

That won't even come close to paying for healthcare for everyone, housing for everyone, jobs for everyone, free college for everyone, and forgiving everyone's student loan debts.

Prove it

Bernie's Medicare for all plan would have cost $1.4 trillion per year. Raising taxes on the 1% to 45% would bring in a whole $276 billion per year.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/business/putting-numbers-to-a-tax-increase-for-the-rich.html

Bit of a disconnect.
---

Taharqa_ posted...

knuxnole posted...

Why do people like her? SHE has no good qualities

You ask that when Donald Trump is in office

Donald trump has amazing qualities

Hes the Everyman president. The New York and Cali people dont matter honestly.
---

The policies we have in place are good enough imo as a poor person

With her, there's too much sjw nonsense about lgbt and race that's just fluff to further alienate conservative whites

It does nothing to get them to see an alternative to the status quo financial system

And frankly, they DO want to alienate them as they see whites as the enemy

Its self defeating
---

shockthemonkey posted...

So even if the extreme end of their goals arent 100% financially viable

Yes, that is what I have been saying this entire time. They are promising things with no way to pay for them.

Really I mostly want them to be honest about what it would take. Come out and say, "To pay for this we will have to raise federal taxes on almost everyone across the board to 40-50%." Instead of hiding behind "tax the rich."
---

shockthemonkey posted...

AlephZero posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

So even if the extreme end of their goals arent 100% financially viable

Yes, that is what I have been saying this entire time. They are promising things with no way to pay for them.

Really I mostly want them to be honest about what it would take. Come out and say, "To pay for this we will have to raise federal taxes on almost everyone across the board to 50%." Instead of hiding behind "tax the rich."

No, they have detailed explanations on how to pay for them. You disagree that it will work. That is not the same thing.

Bernie Sanders' tax plan would not even pay for his Medicare for all proposal, much less anything else.

https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/02/07/bernie-sanders-income-tax-brackets-how-much-would.aspx
---

s0nicfan posted...

I just want to know how she's going to pay for her literal list of promises:

I find this rather funmy because those against her (most anyway) had no problem with Donnie's pure bullshit policies. He never once said anything of substance as to how he wished to achieve the platforms he set out, yet it was good, great, grand enough then. Now, someone makes baseless promises and it's all "How will you do it? That's my real concern."

Note: I don't know your political leanings @s0nicfan, so I'm not attacking you, just the viewpoint of those I mentioned above.
---

Eat More Beef posted...

I find this rather funmy because those against her (most anyway) had no problem with Donnie's pure bullshit policies. He never once said anything of substance as to how he wished to achieve the platforms he set out, yet it was good, great, grand enough then. Now, someone makes baseless promises and it's all "How will you do it? That's my real concern."

Note: I don't know your political leanings @s0nicfan, so I'm not attacking you, just the viewpoint of those I mentioned above.

That's a fair assessment. Republicans are often the party of "how are we going to pay for it" until they have their own policies. That being said, I appreciate someone at least asking the question, so I don't think they should be dinged for that explicitly. I think the difference between Trump's policies and hers is that most of his were one-off projects like the wall, or taking away things that cost money in the first place. Social Security and state pensions in the era of aging baby boomers has shown that policies designed to give everyone (present AND future) something without a firm method of payment can only result in disasters long-term when the money runs out, so you need a bit more planning to justify them because once you add them, it's basically impossible to remove them.
---

Antifar posted...

Nomadic View posted...

She is definitely my pick for a Democratic candidate in 2020.

She'd be 5 years too young to become president. The most realister "next step" for her would be like, mayor of NYC or maybe taking Schumer's seat when it comes up in 2022

A 2024 run would be doable.

@s0nicfan posted...

Eat More Beef posted...

I find this rather funmy because those against her (most anyway) had no problem with Donnie's pure bullshit policies. He never once said anything of substance as to how he wished to achieve the platforms he set out, yet it was good, great, grand enough then. Now, someone makes baseless promises and it's all "How will you do it? That's my real concern."

Note: I don't know your political leanings @s0nicfan, so I'm not attacking you, just the viewpoint of those I mentioned above.

That's a fair assessment. Republicans are often the party of "how are we going to pay for it" until they have their own policies. That being said, I appreciate someone at least asking the question, so I don't think they should be dinged for that explicitly. I think the difference between Trump's policies and hers is that most of his were one-off projects like the wall, or taking away things that cost money in the first place. Social Security and state pensions in the era of aging baby boomers has shown that policies designed to give everyone (present AND future) something without a firm method of payment can only result in disasters long-term when the money runs out, so you need a bit more planning to justify them because once you add them, it's basically impossible to remove them.

I too appreciate those that ask that question. It is of the utmost importance.

How would you propose these things happen that she's asking for?

I'd suggest it comes down to one thing that will snowball. Hear me out though.

Raise taxes to pay for free public transportation. It's a small thing to start with (maybe an extra $10 to $20 for those that live in the municipality that has these things). Those that use it save money on their monthly passes, while those that don't use it may be persuaded to use it since they're paying for it. Use it as a try-out. If it works well, try rolling the program out on a larger level. It has to be taxes on everyone, otherwise you won't get enough money to upgrade the existing service. Think what the metros/busses could do with an influx of hundreds of millions of dollars.

The reason I chose that as my starting point is because, during the 80s, to clean up crime in NYC, the mayor didn't "go big or go home." He simply began a crack down on those that jumped the metro turnstiles. Once implemented, they saw a drastic drop in crime not only in the subways, but across the board. It's rather funny that one small thing could impact such a larger area.

My source is I read it in a book. I think it was Malcolm Gladwell, but don't quote me on it. I'm sure you could find the cause/statistics if you looked. I'm currently too lazy to do so, heh.
---

Eat More Beef posted...

Raise taxes to pay for free public transportation. It's a small thing to start with (maybe an extra $10 to $20 for those that live in the municipality that has these things). Those that use it save money on their monthly passes, while those that don't use it may be persuaded to use it since they're paying for it. Use it as a try-out. If it works well, try rolling the program out on a larger level. It has to be taxes on everyone, otherwise you won't get enough money to upgrade the existing service. Think what the metros/busses could do with an influx of hundreds of millions of dollars.

The reason I chose that as my starting point is because, during the 80s, to clean up crime in NYC, the mayor didn't "go big or go home." He simply began a crack down on those that jumped the metro turnstiles. Once implemented, they saw a drastic drop in crime not only in the subways, but across the board. It's rather funny that one small thing could impact such a larger area.

Seems to me, those two points are contradictory.

Eat More Beef posted...

I too appreciate those that ask that question. It is of the utmost importance.

How would you propose these things happen that she's asking for?

I'd suggest it comes down to one thing that will snowball. Hear me out though.

Raise taxes to pay for free public transportation. It's a small thing to start with (maybe an extra $10 to $20 for those that live in the municipality that has these things). Those that use it save money on their monthly passes, while those that don't use it may be persuaded to use it since they're paying for it. Use it as a try-out. If it works well, try rolling the program out on a larger level. It has to be taxes on everyone, otherwise you won't get enough money to upgrade the existing service. Think what the metros/busses could do with an influx of hundreds of millions of dollars.

The reason I chose that as my starting point is because, during the 80s, to clean up crime in NYC, the mayor didn't "go big or go home." He simply began a crack down on those that jumped the metro turnstiles. Once implemented, they saw a drastic drop in crime not only in the subways, but across the board. It's rather funny that one small thing could impact such a larger area.

My source is I read it in a book. I think it was Malcolm Gladwell, but don't quote me on it. I'm sure you could find the cause/statistics if you looked. I'm currently too lazy to do so, heh.

You're thinking of "The Tipping Point" by Gladwell. The problem is the thoery he's referencing (broken window theory) has since been proven bunk.

As to your other question, "How would you propose these things happen that she's asking for", it really depends on which item. For something like, say, higher education, I'd argue we shouldn't have universal higher education. It completely kills the point of it, the vast majority of people will barely if at all use what they learn, and it dis-incentivizes blue collar and trades which we need desperately.

For other things like "Housing as a human right" it really depends on how you define it. Saying home ownership is a right is insane, but if you're arguing that we should try to eliminate homelessness or work towards a more effective shelter system... that I can get behind.

Then there are the functionally impossible actions, like "100% renewables" which boil down to "I promise to catch rainbows in jars and eliminate the need to poop where the raw numbers make it impossible unless you can convince most people to use candles after dark.

The issue is the list is a set of vague promises for "good things" without enough specifics to even really dig into the "hows". Of the full set, only "paid family care" and "improve campaign finance" actually come close to actionable and in both can be done with little to no cost through bills to ban things or incentives to businesses that provide child care.
---

s0nicfan posted...

For something like, say, higher education, I'd argue we shouldn't have universal higher education. It completely kills the point of it, the vast majority of people will barely if at all use what they learn, and it dis-incentivizes blue collar and trades which we need desperately.

We need to figure out how to destigmatize vocational training, which no amount of legislation and/or social programs can actually accomplish.

Questionmarktarius posted...

s0nicfan posted...

For something like, say, higher education, I'd argue we shouldn't have universal higher education. It completely kills the point of it, the vast majority of people will barely if at all use what they learn, and it dis-incentivizes blue collar and trades which we need desperately.

We need to figure out how to destigmatize vocational training, which no amount of legislation and/or social programs can actually accomplish.

Giving college away for free is counter to those goals, though, because it further cements the idea that if you don't go and finish you've somehow failed as a person. "Blue collar" only started to be a dirty word when college graduation started to be pushed as a requirement to succeed.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

s0nicfan posted...

For something like, say, higher education, I'd argue we shouldn't have universal higher education. It completely kills the point of it, the vast majority of people will barely if at all use what they learn, and it dis-incentivizes blue collar and trades which we need desperately.

We need to figure out how to destigmatize vocational training, which no amount of legislation and/or social programs can actually accomplish.

Giving college away for free is counter to those goals, though, because it further cements the idea that if you don't go and finish you've somehow failed as a person. "Blue collar" only started to be a dirty word when college graduation started to be pushed as a requirement to succeed.

Yes, exactly.

Questionmarktarius posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

s0nicfan posted...

For something like, say, higher education, I'd argue we shouldn't have universal higher education. It completely kills the point of it, the vast majority of people will barely if at all use what they learn, and it dis-incentivizes blue collar and trades which we need desperately.

We need to figure out how to destigmatize vocational training, which no amount of legislation and/or social programs can actually accomplish.

Giving college away for free is counter to those goals, though, because it further cements the idea that if you don't go and finish you've somehow failed as a person. "Blue collar" only started to be a dirty word when college graduation started to be pushed as a requirement to succeed.

Yes, exactly.

So the solution is to make blue collar financially attractive. Show a bunch of kids that they can start making $60K right out of apprenticeship a full 3 years before their peers graduate with hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt with no obvious job guarantees and suddenly the kids who pick up a trade are the "smart ones". More people will seriously question whether their degree in medieval dance theory is actually going to pay off and the result should be a cultural shift.
---

@s0nicfan

You're thinking of "The Tipping Point" by Gladwell. The problem is the thoery he's referencing (broken window theory) has since been proven bunk.

As to your other question, "How would you propose these things happen that she's asking for", it really depends on which item. For something like, say, higher education, I'd argue we shouldn't have universal higher education. It completely kills the point of it, the vast majority of people will barely if at all use what they learn, and it dis-incentivizes blue collar and trades which we need desperately.

I didn't know that was disproven. *sad face*

I think you're discrediting higher education because you only see it as a University degree. Any sort of education beyond high school should be classified as higher. This applies greatly to trades. I mean, wouldn't people want to have free access to plumbing and electrical knowledge, be it a person going into that field or a home owner? Say trade courses are free (which I think they, and univeristy should be too), would it not cut down on the costs to the government if people can assess and fix their own problems that are related to their household? I mean, think of the service charge fees that would be saved alone!

It all amounts to higher taxes, but something that would pay dividends given ten years time to be able to mature. I feel like we're constantly looking for the quick fix of today, instead of dealing with the long term fix of tomorrow. Make education free, and you'll have less people relying on the government to deal with their problems, ergo, the government can use their coffers to better deal with the problems assualting humanity.

I also didn't quote the whole thing due to character restraints, and my ignorance of the other topics involved.

Edit: I come from a place where hydro and other utilities are government subsidies.
---

Eat More Beef posted...

would it not cut down on the costs to the government if people can assess and fix their own problems that are related to their household?

This gets into a much larger topic, but basically you're asking the question that is the fundamental divide between republicans and democrats. A democrat would argue that the benefit of such knowledge has an intangible social benefit that outweighs the costs. A republican would argue that government oversight would actually drive UP costs in the way that insurance has.

The problem is that, absent government support, people have to think really hard about what they believe the value of something is. If they had to pay $1,000 to learn how to fix a sink, they're going to determine for themselves if that knowledge is worth that much. If the government pays for it, people see it as "free" even though it's coming out of taxes. In turn, that place teaching you how to fix a sink will find the maximum amount government will pay for, and charge that instead. To you, it's still free, but the actual cost of the program is now $5K or $10K, because "why not"? No politician would dare take the "free thing" away even though the costs have skyrocketed, and most people would probably not fix their own sink anyway. Since there's no way to bring costs down, the market is effectively ruined.

EDIT:
For example, your point: "Make education free, and you'll have less people relying on the government to deal with their problems, ergo, the government can use their coffers to better deal with the problems assualting humanity."
You're saying that educating people will save the government money by having the government... pay to give everyone an education. They would be using their coffers to pay for the education. Unless you can show that people learning to fix their own plumbing has an actual financial benefit to the country as a whole (or any number of degrees/certifications), all that you've done is turned your money into "free money" through taxes and stopped caring about the actual value of the free thing.

EDIT X2:
And that's not to say that no oversight is better than total oversight... just that it's a very complicated problem with a lot of moving parts that people tend to gloss over because they think "more free stuff" automatically benefits society.
---

lol SHOOK - https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1021886560399237120
---

These people are going to combust
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/07/views-meghan-mccain-loses-mind-audience-cheers-socialism-makes-head-explode/
---