Corner of Berkshire & Fairfax Message Board

General Category => Politics => Topic started by: wescobrk on February 07, 2019, 03:12:35 PM

Title: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: wescobrk on February 07, 2019, 03:12:35 PM
I haven't seen the details and I don't usually post political stuff, but this doesn't sound good:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/07/ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal-offers-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work.html
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: Cardboard on February 07, 2019, 03:49:20 PM
Feel free to express yourself Wescobrk!

That girl is a danger for America. Maybe that Nicaragua, Cuba or Venezuela would be the right place for her.

Cardboard
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: LC on February 07, 2019, 03:52:33 PM
Quote
The actual resolution that outlines the Green New Deal does not include the "unwilling to work" part, but the overview document, released by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's office, does include the "unwilling" language

Probably a negotiating tactic but baloney nonetheless.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: Spekulatius on February 07, 2019, 03:53:47 PM
I haven't seen the details and I don't usually post political stuff, but this doesn't sound good:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/07/ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal-offers-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work.html

It’s part of her branding. She needs to put out extreme and unrealistic statements to gain and keep mindshare and appear in the news. It’s sort of the Trump way of dealing with the media. Better to be known as notorious than not be known at all. like it or hate it doesn’t matter as long as people talk about it.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: MarkS on February 07, 2019, 04:29:28 PM
I believe she is in favor of Universal Basic Income.
https://www.thenation.com/article/universal-basic-income-become-political-reality/
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: rukawa on February 08, 2019, 07:48:32 AM
She want to end airline travel:
https://reason.com/blog/2019/02/07/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal
which will cost trillions.

And she wants to basically print money to pay for it based on Modern Monetary Theory:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-17/modern-monetary-theory-would-sink-u-s-in-debt

MMT is a financial weapon of mass fiscal destruction.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: cubsfan on February 08, 2019, 10:12:51 AM
This does not speak well for the Economics department at Boston University!
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: DTEJD1997 on February 08, 2019, 10:23:33 AM
I would think that the members of this board would be VERY alarmed by this talk...

If the "Green New Deal" takes effect...we might as well kiss the economy good bye.  Unemployment would be in the hundreds of millions.  Inflation would simply be out of control.  Those are probably the "good" things. 

As for bad things, I am sure there would be mass arrests & "re-education camps" for those that would not comply, or not comply quickly enough.

What would happen to the stock market?  I would guess that it would go down.  The P/E ratio of the market would probably have to be about 1.  Cap rates would collapse down to about one or less. 

What is probably even worse, is that all this nonsense about "Green New Deals" and socialism is to condition people to these crazy economic ideas.  "Green New Deal" might never come about, but what about a carbon tax?  What about universal basic income, what about this & that?

Propose something simply CRAZY and then you can sneak in other things that never would have been acceptable previously.  A carbon tax doesn't sound that bad compared to the "Green New Deal"!

This nonsense needs to be discredited and shut down right now, right here.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: cubsfan on February 08, 2019, 10:51:24 AM
I would think that the members of this board would be VERY alarmed by this talk...

If the "Green New Deal" takes effect...we might as well kiss the economy good bye.  Unemployment would be in the hundreds of millions.  Inflation would simply be out of control.  Those are probably the "good" things. 

As for bad things, I am sure there would be mass arrests & "re-education camps" for those that would not comply, or not comply quickly enough.

What would happen to the stock market?  I would guess that it would go down.  The P/E ratio of the market would probably have to be about 1.  Cap rates would collapse down to about one or less. 

What is probably even worse, is that all this nonsense about "Green New Deals" and socialism is to condition people to these crazy economic ideas.  "Green New Deal" might never come about, but what about a carbon tax?  What about universal basic income, what about this & that?

Propose something simply CRAZY and then you can sneak in other things that never would have been acceptable previously.  A carbon tax doesn't sound that bad compared to the "Green New Deal"!

This nonsense needs to be discredited and shut down right now, right here.

But it's the liberal mindset - free everything for everybody, illegals included - don't be a racist!
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: LC on February 08, 2019, 10:56:55 AM
This nonsense needs to be discredited and shut down right now, right here.
To be honest your post seems just as reactionary as the Green New Deal.

There are problems - there is a middle ground - we need to get there - not shouting at each other from either corners of the stadium.

Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: Cardboard on February 08, 2019, 11:02:14 AM
Don't expect LC to shut this down. LOL!

"What is probably even worse, is that all this nonsense about "Green New Deals" and socialism is to condition people to these crazy economic ideas.  "Green New Deal" might never come about, but what about a carbon tax?  What about universal basic income, what about this & that?"

You nailed it and you see LC is now already talking about some middle ground. To him middle ground is to bring you closer to this crazy shit from current reality. Never would it be allowed that middle ground is where we are right now.

Cardboard
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: LC on February 08, 2019, 11:48:13 AM
Cardboard,  you are mis-characterizing me. The worst part is you avoid specifics - is there a particular policy you would like me to state my opinion on? If you had asked you would have found out I am against all this "crazy shit".

Maybe ask that question as opposed to generic statements about wanting to "bringing us closer to crazy shit".

Its rude, annoying, and disingenuous. But what can I expect when your username describes your brain composition. ;D
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: DTEJD1997 on February 08, 2019, 12:03:50 PM
This nonsense needs to be discredited and shut down right now, right here.
To be honest your post seems just as reactionary as the Green New Deal.

There are problems - there is a middle ground - we need to get there - not shouting at each other from either corners of the stadium.

My post is reactionary?  Oh ok.  It is reactionary to not want hundreds of millions of unemployed people?  To not want a total collapse of the economy?

No more internal combustion engines?  No more nuclear power?  No more planes?  Every new job is a union job? 

trains, Trains, TRAINS everywhere, going really fast?  The government has done really well with that so far!

The idiocy of the plan is calling for "zero emissions".  How many emissions will be produced building all the windmills, solar panels and train tracks?

In the end though, what does it matter?  We'll all be dead in 10 or 11 years anyway...
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: cubsfan on February 08, 2019, 12:22:17 PM
This nonsense needs to be discredited and shut down right now, right here.
To be honest your post seems just as reactionary as the Green New Deal.

There are problems - there is a middle ground - we need to get there - not shouting at each other from either corners of the stadium.

My post is reactionary?  Oh ok.  It is reactionary to not want hundreds of millions of unemployed people?  To not want a total collapse of the economy?

No more internal combustion engines?  No more nuclear power?  No more planes?  Every new job is a union job? 

trains, Trains, TRAINS everywhere, going really fast?  The government has done really well with that so far!

The idiocy of the plan is calling for "zero emissions".  How many emissions will be produced building all the windmills, solar panels and train tracks?

In the end though, what does it matter?  We'll all be dead in 10 or 11 years anyway...

Totally right on.

Why in the world even the liberals (not to mention reasonable Democrats) would not distance themselves from this lunacy
is beyond me.  Ocasio-Cortez make the party look totally nuts.

To say it's an attempt to get to a middle ground is not enough - this supposed attempt from Ocasio-Cortez is a
total waste of everyone's time because it shows NO understanding of reality. And any politician that even mildly supports
looks stupid.

We should all be frightened that the "left" is slowing gaining control of the Democratic Party.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: Gregmal on February 08, 2019, 12:23:29 PM
This girl is probably, as Curt Schilling said, the dumbest person to ever be elected to Congress. You can tell her plans aren't really hers. They are that of a think tank or team of strategists. Its a dead give away when she tweets or puts in in writing but then when asked in person to elaborate looks and sounds like some twisted mish mash of an 80's valley girl meets Brooklyn hipster with a sprinkle of learning disorder.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: LC on February 08, 2019, 12:37:07 PM
This nonsense needs to be discredited and shut down right now, right here.
To be honest your post seems just as reactionary as the Green New Deal.

There are problems - there is a middle ground - we need to get there - not shouting at each other from either corners of the stadium.

My post is reactionary?  Oh ok.  It is reactionary to not want hundreds of millions of unemployed people?  To not want a total collapse of the economy?

No more internal combustion engines?  No more nuclear power?  No more planes?  Every new job is a union job? 

trains, Trains, TRAINS everywhere, going really fast?  The government has done really well with that so far!

The idiocy of the plan is calling for "zero emissions".  How many emissions will be produced building all the windmills, solar panels and train tracks?

In the end though, what does it matter?  We'll all be dead in 10 or 11 years anyway...
Well, I'll tell you why I said that. Your post is reactionary because (1) you are assuming the consequences of these potential policies - for example you claim 100s of millions of unemployed people, but this is an unjustified assumption, and (2) you are not recognizing that the Green New deal is itself a reactionary response to trends we are seeing and have discussed on this board, such as the erosion of democratic voting rights (globally too, not just USA), increased income inequality, climate change, political divisiveness, etc.

Hence my post about "not shouting at each other from corners of the stadium" - which frankly it seems like you are still doing (and I myself have been guilty of as well).
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: Castanza on February 08, 2019, 01:15:33 PM
This nonsense needs to be discredited and shut down right now, right here.
To be honest your post seems just as reactionary as the Green New Deal.

There are problems - there is a middle ground - we need to get there - not shouting at each other from either corners of the stadium.

My post is reactionary?  Oh ok.  It is reactionary to not want hundreds of millions of unemployed people?  To not want a total collapse of the economy?

No more internal combustion engines?  No more nuclear power?  No more planes?  Every new job is a union job? 

trains, Trains, TRAINS everywhere, going really fast?  The government has done really well with that so far!

The idiocy of the plan is calling for "zero emissions".  How many emissions will be produced building all the windmills, solar panels and train tracks?

In the end though, what does it matter?  We'll all be dead in 10 or 11 years anyway...
Well, I'll tell you why I said that. Your post is reactionary because (1) you are assuming the consequences of these potential policies - for example you claim 100s of millions of unemployed people, but this is an unjustified assumption, and (2) you are not recognizing that the Green New deal is itself a reactionary response to trends we are seeing and have discussed on this board, such as the erosion of democratic voting rights (globally too, not just USA), increased income inequality, climate change, political divisiveness, etc.

Hence my post about "not shouting at each other from corners of the stadium" - which frankly it seems like you are still doing (and I myself have been guilty of as well).

The New Green Deal isn't a reaction. It's a ramp up of an already failed path the country is taking. It's not addressing the right issues and honestly looks quite a lot like trying to dig your way out of a hole. "You are assuming the consequences of these potential policies." The consequences are not assumed. They are proven and shown all throughout history. The issue is we have seen increased regulation and government involvement since the 1930's.

Milton Friedman (someone whom I respect greatly) talked a lot about freedom.

“A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.”

“One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.”

"capitalism is not a sufficient condition for freedom. But it is a necessary condition for freedom. I did not say wherever you have capitalism you have freedom.
I said wherever you have freedom you have capitalism." - Milton Friedman

And one more from Thoreau

"If I knew for certain that a man was coming to my house with a conscious design of doing me good. I shall run for my life."

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

But one thing Friedman also talked about that many people never discuss is his ability to see the world in the terms it exists. Many politicians make these plans based on ideal conditions in terms of markets, social standings, political environment, etc. In other words, Friedman recognized change takes time, and that some of the steps to achieve the goal might not be something he loves.

Probably the best example of this for Friedman was his idea for a negative income tax. Many people argue this is simply UBI (which to an extent it is) but there are differences which I will not get into now. Anyways under ideal market and economical conditions a negative income tax would not be something Friedman would support. But his goal in this is to facilitate change towards that ideal condition of a total laissez faire market. But most people hesitation to things like this is the fact that no entitlement has ever gone away.

As Ben Franklin said (at least it's attributed to him) "When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic."

So yes, it's all well and dandy to want to help people. But doing so in a way that does not permanently damage the country is near impossible. Friedman and the founding fathers recognized this dilemma. And this goes back to Friedman's quote “A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.” We will never have totality of either because humans are flawed creatures.

So when people like AOC (side note: She had a decent speech this past week on presidential power) propose these wild ideas like the New Green Deal i find it blatantly obvious to be the wrong direction. I mean Anderson Cooper and Jake Trapper even asked "How will you pay for it?!" 40+ trillion? really? That is not a solution and a middle ground is still not the right direction. 20 trillion is not a middle ground.

We shouldn't be focused on trying to find the middle ground. We should be focused on finding the correct path forward. And in no shape of form is spending 20-40 trillion dollars in 12 years the correct path.

Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: KJP on February 08, 2019, 02:01:21 PM
I'm surprised at some of the comments on here.  For example, if we're going to have a policy that discourages CO2 emissions, isn't a carbon tax by far the best way to do it?  The alternatives -- like subsidies -- appear to rely on exactly the type of central planning that doesn't work, e.g., subsidies presume that governments and bureaucrats can correctly identify what to subsidize. 

Similarly, $20-$40 trillion over 10 years does seem quite steep.  But can we really not do a "middle ground" of $10 trillion over 20 years (just at the federal level)?  Haven't we already committed something close to that to Iraq/Afghanistan? [https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/27/donald-trump/did-us-spend-6-trillion-middle-east-wars/]  And I suspect that building infrastructure in the United States would have a higher GDP multiplier than warring in Iraq.  So, we obviously could do quite a lot if we wanted to. 

I think zero emissions in 10 years is pie-in-the-sky stuff.  But if we really had to, we could do quite a lot without the economy falling apart.  But the reality is that there's no political consensus in the US that CO2 emissions are even a problem.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: Mephistopheles on February 08, 2019, 03:37:09 PM
AOC is mentally ill. The Green New Deal is disastrous, no it will never pass, but like someone above said - it sets a bad standard/precedent of what should be accepted in normal dialogue vs. what shouldn't be given the light of day.

She's the Trump of the left. The Dem senators running in 2020 all threw their support behind "Green New Deal". Much like much of the GOP have thrown their weight behind Trump.

What has this country come to?
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: Cigarbutt on February 08, 2019, 03:51:35 PM
AOC is mentally ill. The Green New Deal is disastrous, no it will never pass, but like someone above said - it sets a bad standard/precedent of what should be accepted in normal dialogue vs. what shouldn't be given the light of day.

She's the Trump of the left. The Dem senators running in 2020 all threw their support behind "Green New Deal". Much like much of the GOP have thrown their weight behind Trump.

What has this country come to?
Perhaps the answer lies within the passionate moderates. :)
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/opinion/trump-moderates-bipartisanship-truth.html
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: cubsfan on February 08, 2019, 04:17:47 PM
That is an excellent opinion piece - here's to the moderates.

Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: LC on February 08, 2019, 05:34:49 PM
hear hear to that - very good read.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: no_free_lunch on February 08, 2019, 06:02:54 PM
I think that you could cut back on emissions without all the government spend. They are just looking for an excuse to hand out money to their base. 

You could set regulatuons on car emissions, home insulation standards, mandate competing private high speed trains.  You could help people pay for it by lowering taxes.

Just like the new deal its just a way to grow government.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: wachtwoord on February 09, 2019, 02:35:50 AM
How the hell did Cortez even get a platform? It's a high inflation environment all-right. High inflation of quality...
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: wescobrk on February 09, 2019, 03:37:47 AM
Apparently she is also against Amazon coming to NY.
We will see if Amazon pulls out and chooses another city.
Economic security for those unwilling to work plus arguably the greatest company on the planet wants to come to her city and she doesn't want it.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: cubsfan on February 09, 2019, 07:21:26 AM
You just have to love the hypocrisy of the far left - these people look like fools:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2020-democrats-jump-to-endorse-green-new-deal-despite-spending-hundreds-of-thousands-on-air-travel-including-private-jets

Will be interesting to see if the moderate Democrats can rein in these nutbags.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: MarkS on February 09, 2019, 07:55:54 AM
I love her newest claim that Hispanics aren't subject to immigration laws.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/02/08/aoc-ice-remarks-n2541027
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: Schwab711 on February 09, 2019, 08:10:15 AM
I love her newest claim that Hispanics aren't subject to immigration laws.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/02/08/aoc-ice-remarks-n2541027

The amount of attention a freshman Rep gets when the POTUS says the same types of stuff is why we have both. She can't even bring a bill to the floor without Pelosi's approval. She is far from the only Rep to say something stupid. There are also numerous Congressmen, cabinet members, gov't officials, ect that have done something that others have been forced to resign for.

"North Korea, under the leadership of Kim Jong Un, will become a great Economic Powerhouse. He may surprise some but he won’t surprise me, because I have gotten to know him & fully understand how capable he is. North Korea will become a different kind of Rocket - an Economic one!"

As long as everyone blames the other side instead of finding compromise, we'll sink deeper and the perpetual pessimists will say "told you America is Rome". It's willfull failure.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: Cardboard on February 09, 2019, 08:50:57 AM
Wow! What a poor way to legitimize a complete idiot which is AOC.

Trump makes extravagant comments at times but, I see it as trying to solve immediate problems: peace with North Korea, more economic growth for the U.S., following our laws, work for all, etc. Not so different that past Presidents really but, a higher sense of urgency.

Is this a bad thing if North Korea turns its economy around? What if Truman had said the same thing about Japan? He would have looked and been considered crazy but, would have been eventually correct.

While this girl is trying to drive down America via the known path of poverty and slavery.

I am sorry but, anyone who is unable to look at today's reality and to see how good things are and to conceptualize how bad things would be under her vision is either not capable of thinking, not knowing history or just having drank too much of the extreme left and media kool-aid.

Cardboard
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: cubsfan on February 09, 2019, 09:01:16 AM
The amount of attention a freshman Rep gets when the POTUS says the same types of stuff is why we have both.

As long as everyone blames the other side instead of finding compromise, we'll sink deeper and the perpetual pessimists will say "told you America is Rome". It's willfull failure.

The freshman congresswoman is a phoenom and represents the radical left with no apology. The stuff that comes out of her mouth is a "non-starter" and a waste of everyone's time. Plus it's dangerous that the ranks of young people swell behind her because of her appealing, but naive viewpoint.

These "simple" solutions that put millions of people out of work - but DON'T worry, because we will pay for those people anyway, by printing more money
are totally idiocy. Democrats need to shut this nonsense down if they want to be considered legitimate problem solvers.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: Schwab711 on February 09, 2019, 09:04:23 AM
The amount of attention a freshman Rep gets when the POTUS says the same types of stuff is why we have both.

As long as everyone blames the other side instead of finding compromise, we'll sink deeper and the perpetual pessimists will say "told you America is Rome". It's willfull failure.

The freshman congresswoman is a phoenom and represents the radical left with no apology. The stuff that comes out of her mouth is a "non-starter" and a waste of everyone's time. Plus it's dangerous that the ranks of young people swell behind her because of her appealing, but naive viewpoint.

These "simple" solutions that put millions of people out of work - but DON'T worry, because we will pay for those people anyway, by printing more money
are totally idiocy. Democrats need to shut this nonsense down if they want to be considered legitimate problem solvers.

I felt the same way about all the time wasted on Trump's illegal or non-economically sound ideas. Yet here we are. Your first reaction is to conflate all D's with AOC and to blame them all instead of finding compromise between what we both think. Basically my post...

By illegal ideas, I mean things like the Muslim Ban. If you want to block immigration/refugees from certain countries, great. If you want to publicly call it a Muslim Ban to rally a base against the other half of the country and then complain when it's obviously struck down as illegal, it's a non-starter. It's damaging to the morale of the country. The tax plan was purposefully political. I thought corporate tax reform was necessary in pre-2016. I created multiple threads about the idea. The actual plan added garbage that was purposefully designed to cause political tension. It was exactly what you complain about with AOC, but from your POV. It's a 'non-starter' for me. Cheering on KJU and failing to take nuclear proliferation is a non-starter for me. Making a mockery of sanctions policy with Russians and non-Russians is a non-starter for me. It undermines our long-term foreign policy. Maybe you don't like that foreign policy. Maybe the majority doesn't. OK, then let's come up with a long-term plan that's slowly implemented so we don't hurt our own interests.

I'm probably not the liberal you accuse me of. I just think the rhetoric in the country has deteriorated in the last decade in the public forum and it's sad. Not Trump, sad! Just sad.

You take everything so personally that it's hard to post anything critical of your ideas. It's bad juju for the board. At least MarkS is polite.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: no_free_lunch on February 09, 2019, 09:06:00 AM
I love her newest claim that Hispanics aren't subject to immigration laws.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/02/08/aoc-ice-remarks-n2541027

The amount of attention a freshman Rep gets when the POTUS says the same types of stuff is why we have both. She can't even bring a bill to the floor without Pelosi's approval. She is far from the only Rep to say something stupid. There are also numerous Congressmen, cabinet members, gov't officials, ect that have done something that others have been forced to resign for.

"North Korea, under the leadership of Kim Jong Un, will become a great Economic Powerhouse. He may surprise some but he won’t surprise me, because I have gotten to know him & fully understand how capable he is. North Korea will become a different kind of Rocket - an Economic one!"

As long as everyone blames the other side instead of finding compromise, we'll sink deeper and the perpetual pessimists will say "told you America is Rome". It's willfull failure.

It's not just AOC.   

Booker and Sanders are pushing guaranteed jobs.  A guaranteed job at $15 per hour is just another form of UBI.   How can you make somebody work if there job is guaranteed.  I have worked in union jobs before and it just becomes a game to do the least work.  If you are guaranteed employment, it would be even worse.  You are just guranteed $15 per hour or $30k per year as long as you can halt your butt in each morning.    There are all kinds of loony ideas from the dems.  Frankly this would have a far bigger impact, negatively than anything Trump has done.   This stuff would push the US much deeper into socialism and government control.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: Cardboard on February 09, 2019, 09:13:41 AM
Then Harris, Warren and how many more?

The way they trashed Schultz and even asking him about being Jewish, should be enough for anyone to reject out of hand what has become the Democratic Party.

Then these comments from Clinton just this week. Isn't this definition for sexism?

"it often takes a woman to get the job done."



Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: Schwab711 on February 09, 2019, 09:15:10 AM
I love her newest claim that Hispanics aren't subject to immigration laws.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/02/08/aoc-ice-remarks-n2541027

The amount of attention a freshman Rep gets when the POTUS says the same types of stuff is why we have both. She can't even bring a bill to the floor without Pelosi's approval. She is far from the only Rep to say something stupid. There are also numerous Congressmen, cabinet members, gov't officials, ect that have done something that others have been forced to resign for.

"North Korea, under the leadership of Kim Jong Un, will become a great Economic Powerhouse. He may surprise some but he won’t surprise me, because I have gotten to know him & fully understand how capable he is. North Korea will become a different kind of Rocket - an Economic one!"

As long as everyone blames the other side instead of finding compromise, we'll sink deeper and the perpetual pessimists will say "told you America is Rome". It's willfull failure.

It's not just AOC.   

Booker and Sanders are pushing guaranteed jobs.  A guaranteed job at $15 per hour is just another form of UBI.   How can you make somebody work if there job is guaranteed.  I have worked in union jobs before and it just becomes a game to do the least work.  If you are guaranteed employment, it would be even worse.  You are just guranteed $15 per hour or $30k per year as long as you can halt your butt in each morning.    There are all kinds of loony ideas from the dems.  Frankly this would have a far bigger impact, negatively than anything Trump has done.   This stuff would push the US much deeper into socialism and government control.

I don't like them either but it's almost impossible for them to make it to the floor. The Senate would obviously block them. They have little chance in the long-run for the same reason R's didn't pass a lot of things people thought they would between 2016-2018. It's a trial balloon, like a lot of Trump's crazy ideas floated where people say to take him seriously, not literally.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: cubsfan on February 09, 2019, 09:15:43 AM
The amount of attention a freshman Rep gets when the POTUS says the same types of stuff is why we have both.

As long as everyone blames the other side instead of finding compromise, we'll sink deeper and the perpetual pessimists will say "told you America is Rome". It's willfull failure.

The freshman congresswoman is a phoenom and represents the radical left with no apology. The stuff that comes out of her mouth is a "non-starter" and a waste of everyone's time. Plus it's dangerous that the ranks of young people swell behind her because of her appealing, but naive viewpoint.

These "simple" solutions that put millions of people out of work - but DON'T worry, because we will pay for those people anyway, by printing more money
are totally idiocy. Democrats need to shut this nonsense down if they want to be considered legitimate problem solvers.

I felt the same way about all the time wasted on Trump's illegal or non-economically sound ideas. Yet here we are. Your first reaction is to conflate all D's with AOC and to blame them all instead of finding compromise between what we both think. Basically my post...

Actually, I am not conflating all Democrats with AOC - I am saying that the party is moving way to the left - and it will be nothing but trouble for them.
That is what I am saying - I like you - wish for REASONABLE positions and compromise - for the good of the country and getting problems solved.

Your party is being hijacked by the left - and unless we have a recession - I don't think it's going to end well for the Democrats.

The nutcases, Booker, Shift, Gildibrand, Hirona, etc - are going to destroy your party. Good luck on getting elected with idiotic positions.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: Schwab711 on February 09, 2019, 09:23:33 AM
The amount of attention a freshman Rep gets when the POTUS says the same types of stuff is why we have both.

As long as everyone blames the other side instead of finding compromise, we'll sink deeper and the perpetual pessimists will say "told you America is Rome". It's willfull failure.

The freshman congresswoman is a phoenom and represents the radical left with no apology. The stuff that comes out of her mouth is a "non-starter" and a waste of everyone's time. Plus it's dangerous that the ranks of young people swell behind her because of her appealing, but naive viewpoint.

These "simple" solutions that put millions of people out of work - but DON'T worry, because we will pay for those people anyway, by printing more money
are totally idiocy. Democrats need to shut this nonsense down if they want to be considered legitimate problem solvers.

I felt the same way about all the time wasted on Trump's illegal or non-economically sound ideas. Yet here we are. Your first reaction is to conflate all D's with AOC and to blame them all instead of finding compromise between what we both think. Basically my post...

Actually, I am not conflating all Democrats with AOC - I am saying that the party is moving way to the left - and it will be nothing but trouble for them.
That is what I am saying - I like you - wish for REASONABLE positions and compromise - for the good of the country and getting problems solved.

Your party is being hijacked by the left - and unless we have a recession - I don't think it's going to end well for the Democrats.

The nutcases, Booker, Shift, Gildibrand, Hirona, etc - are going to destroy your party. Good luck on getting elected with idiotic positions.

People felt the same way about R's and Trump. That's why the push to the left is happening imo. It's strategic. It drives R's crazy, which makes more D's political/vote. It's going to take parties policing themselves to help the opposite party trust them more before the extremism in the country eases. It's going to take R's policing Trump for D's to call out Warren for running on an illegal tax plan, imo.

I appreciate the more reasoned response. I just don't think it's one party. There's growing discontent among a large portion of both parties. I think we need to build trust in this country to ease the anxiety on both sides. I think the easiest way will be with corruption enforcement. As usual, I think a lot of broader issues in the US come back to what Trump represents to so many (supporters and detractors). By that, I mean I think future D compromise/appeasement of the will of many R's has to come in the form of adopting Trump-ish ideas after he is gone. I don't know or have any idea what that looks like. I think roughly, to D's, he is corruption and hate. To R's, he's hope and strength. There's a way to bridge the gap, but I think it almost certainly means Trump must be removed from office. If he serves out and is removed by election, it will be due to the increased turnout of the 'far Left' (from your POV).
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: Parsad on February 09, 2019, 09:55:37 AM
I haven't seen the details and I don't usually post political stuff, but this doesn't sound good:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/07/ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal-offers-economic-security-for-those-unwilling-to-work.html

It’s part of her branding. She needs to put out extreme and unrealistic statements to gain and keep mindshare and appear in the news. It’s sort of the Trump way of dealing with the media. Better to be known as notorious than not be known at all. like it or hate it doesn’t matter as long as people talk about it.

That's exactly it!  The left and the right keep spurring leadership at each party to greater and greater depths!  Everyone fights fire with fire...it's the populace that ends up getting burned over time.  Cheers!
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: MarkS on February 09, 2019, 11:02:22 AM
A recent Gallop poll showed that among democrats 57% viewed socialism positively while only 47% viewed capitalism favorably. That translates roughly into about 4 out of every 10 adults favor socialism, which is a big minority.  In a way it doesn't surprise me as a little less than 50% of the population pay federal income taxes.  So I see the problem as more of a long term sea change.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: Cigarbutt on February 09, 2019, 11:07:42 AM
Showing how her ideas are not good policy is fair game (and fairly easy to do) but demonizing what she represents may not be the best strategy.
Inverting, one has to wonder why some of those radical ideas are drawing support.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/poll-finds-broad-support-for-ocasio-cortezs-70-top-tax-rate-proposal-2019-01-15

A possible underlying message is that the ideas that you support constitute an even worse alternative than what she proposes.
Improving the alternative so that 20% of the population (moderate group) switches "camp" and agrees with you may be sufficient to carry on.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: Cardboard on February 09, 2019, 11:46:00 AM
Difference between how to attract moderates:

Trump: "We will get you a job."

New Democrats: "We will tax the rich and give you welfare."

Cardboard
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: Cigarbutt on February 09, 2019, 12:24:54 PM
Difference between how to attract moderates:

Trump: "We will get you a job."

New Democrats: "We will tax the rich and give you welfare."

Cardboard
If forced to choose between Trickle Down and Robin Hood, I would tend to choose the former but do we have to make that choice?
Over time, the moderates in the US have quite consistently actively looked for work and have not typically expected a "we" to provide them with one.
One thing that seems to have changed for moderates is that, until recently, they had not felt that the deck "is stacked against people like me".

On the evidence side, a fellow member recently quoted a Forbes article showing growing manufacturing employment and that's good if durable. However, a contemporary piece by Forbes shows a more sobering picture.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/10/30/two-charts-show-trumps-job-gains-are-just-a-continuation-from-obamas-presidency/#6bf0971b1af3
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: LC on February 09, 2019, 12:43:01 PM
Over time, the moderates in the US have quite consistently actively looked for work and have not typically expected a "we" to provide them with one.
One thing that seems to have changed for moderates is that, until recently, they had not felt that the deck "is stacked against people like me".
This is a fair assessment I would argue.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: MarkS on February 09, 2019, 01:22:55 PM
Over time, the moderates in the US have quite consistently actively looked for work and have not typically expected a "we" to provide them with one.
One thing that seems to have changed for moderates is that, until recently, they had not felt that the deck "is stacked against people like me".
This is a fair assessment I would argue.

I have a question.  Do you guys believe that the moderates feel that the deck is stacked against them and in favor of the rich?  Or do you feel that the moderates believe that they ultimately pay for the 47% of the people who do not pay federal income tax? Or a combination of both?
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: LC on February 09, 2019, 01:34:06 PM
The way forward for the majority of people earning under 1MM is to expand the earning base, not shrink the expense base.

Therefore I think the majority are (or, should be) concerned with the shrinking levels of upward mobility, not an onerous tax burden.


Here's my thinking at least:
It is difficult for a working class person looking at someone who receives gov't assistance and thinking "well I don't live much better than this person, yet I work 8-10 hours/day!"

The first thought is, "well screw this gov't assistance!".

When really the problem is that the majority of the working class is barely paid enough to live above a welfare state.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: Gregmal on February 09, 2019, 02:11:55 PM
The biggest issue is so much entrenched in "the system" that it'll never get addressed. Yes, upward mobility is big. But it's two tiered IMO. It also has a lot to do with education.

First, one of the tried and true mom and pop ways to make a living was to own and operate a local business. These were predominantly retail, and the nest egg was paying off your mortgage and owning both the business and the real estate. This way is largely gone because of the Walmarts and Amazons. I have a friend who's father owned a big local insurance agency. He told me how in his teenage years both he and his brother had hopes of taking over the family business. The father told them that it was there if they wanted it, but that he didn't think the industry was headed in a direction that would allow them to have the careers they were seeking. I see large family run nurseries selling or closing up shop after decades all the time. Travel agencies don't exist anymore. If you aren't a hair salon or a dry cleaner you dont really have a shot anymore. There is no way to replace these things.

Second, to become a high earner, you kind of need to have an ability to see where things are headed. Or as a teenager, be pushed in the right direction, or be lucky in terms of what your interests are at that age. Banking was en vogue in the 70's and 80's, 90's and 2000's it was internet, and I think now through the foreseeable future it'll be derivatives of biomedical engineering and programming. But even if you disagree, look at where it's "easy" to make big money as a w-2. The skillset needed for these jobs simply are not taught in 95% of the high schools in America. The ones that do give intros to these areas are generally private schools that most families cant afford. 

So, to the future generations, what do they do? The number of high paying jobs in the financial industry is shrinking fast. Local family businesses in retail aren't there. And anything sales based is in the process of being phased out by the likes of big corporations who's sole goal was to squeeze margins and kill competitors, and automation. Real estate agent commissions are and will continue to get crushed, car dealerships are fighting the Tesla model, but there will be pressure there. Insurance is becoming available on agentless platforms, stocks are traded for $1 on IBKR and regardless everyone is buying index funds now, and outside of that what's left are a healthy, but not excessive number of jobs where one can make $40-50K a year being a cog.

I do think one of the biggest culprits are cheap rich people. The other biggest culprit is the government. And because these pieces of the problem are on opposite ends of the spectrum, they'll never be fixed. Government wants to steal from people who already carry the load so they can piss away the money on things that dont solve anything(like investigating helicopter noise and Russian people), while wealthy people and corporations, pissed off that the government is constantly trying to poach what they earn, squeeze every penny left and as a result low and mid level employees get squeezed.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: wachtwoord on February 10, 2019, 03:23:42 AM
Sounds like a decent summary. Most likely nothing will change until it does but than majorly. At least that's always how these macro socio-economical trends changed in history (as far as I know, curious to lear of counter examples).
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: meiroy on February 10, 2019, 03:43:39 AM

Relax, she simply can't win that voice of hers.  If you see her smoking, though, THEN be afraid, be very afraid.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: Cigarbutt on February 10, 2019, 05:41:09 AM
The biggest issue is so much entrenched in "the system" that it'll never get addressed. Yes, upward mobility is big. But it's two tiered IMO. It also has a lot to do with education.

First, one of the tried and true mom and pop ways to make a living was to own and operate a local business. These were predominantly retail, and the nest egg was paying off your mortgage and owning both the business and the real estate. This way is largely gone because of the Walmarts and Amazons. I have a friend who's father owned a big local insurance agency. He told me how in his teenage years both he and his brother had hopes of taking over the family business. The father told them that it was there if they wanted it, but that he didn't think the industry was headed in a direction that would allow them to have the careers they were seeking. I see large family run nurseries selling or closing up shop after decades all the time. Travel agencies don't exist anymore. If you aren't a hair salon or a dry cleaner you dont really have a shot anymore. There is no way to replace these things.

Second, to become a high earner, you kind of need to have an ability to see where things are headed. Or as a teenager, be pushed in the right direction, or be lucky in terms of what your interests are at that age. Banking was en vogue in the 70's and 80's, 90's and 2000's it was internet, and I think now through the foreseeable future it'll be derivatives of biomedical engineering and programming. But even if you disagree, look at where it's "easy" to make big money as a w-2. The skillset needed for these jobs simply are not taught in 95% of the high schools in America. The ones that do give intros to these areas are generally private schools that most families cant afford. 

So, to the future generations, what do they do? The number of high paying jobs in the financial industry is shrinking fast. Local family businesses in retail aren't there. And anything sales based is in the process of being phased out by the likes of big corporations who's sole goal was to squeeze margins and kill competitors, and automation. Real estate agent commissions are and will continue to get crushed, car dealerships are fighting the Tesla model, but there will be pressure there. Insurance is becoming available on agentless platforms, stocks are traded for $1 on IBKR and regardless everyone is buying index funds now, and outside of that what's left are a healthy, but not excessive number of jobs where one can make $40-50K a year being a cog.

I do think one of the biggest culprits are cheap rich people. The other biggest culprit is the government. And because these pieces of the problem are on opposite ends of the spectrum, they'll never be fixed. Government wants to steal from people who already carry the load so they can piss away the money on things that dont solve anything(like investigating helicopter noise and Russian people), while wealthy people and corporations, pissed off that the government is constantly trying to poach what they earn, squeeze every penny left and as a result low and mid level employees get squeezed.
That was quite an insightful post. Did you write it yourself? :D
However, for a rare occasion, you may be missing the forest for the trees. :)
You are forgetting human capital.

During the 20th century, America was a leader in education and it seems that the education model is broken. Passively listening to my kids and their complaints, as they are making their way through higher education, it is hard to imagine to extent to which this model will be disrupted by the "new" information technology.

Change, there will be, incremental, transitional or transformational. I guess it will depend on how long it takes to wake up.

Here's a short video that was made in 2012. Are we heading in the right direction?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: stahleyp on February 10, 2019, 06:50:44 AM
Taxing the wealthy would help a lot of of the current ailments on the economy (assuming the money would be used prudently...admittedly that is a big if).

While I wouldn't say I'm all that wealthy, we do invest a pretty large chunk of our income (that's because our expenses are low not because our income is all that high).

Right now, if taxes went down, the only way that would impact me is I'd put less into stocks. That's it.

As a result of the lowering of taxes some of the local community project may lose funding - affecting jobs and the "real" economy. If my taxes went up, I'm worse off (from a net worth perspective but virtually no change in quality of life) but most others would be better off.

Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: SharperDingaan on February 10, 2019, 09:17:27 AM
The biggest issue is so much entrenched in "the system" that it'll never get addressed. Yes, upward mobility is big. But it's two tiered IMO. It also has a lot to do with education.

First, one of the tried and true mom and pop ways to make a living was to own and operate a local business. These were predominantly retail, and the nest egg was paying off your mortgage and owning both the business and the real estate. This way is largely gone because of the Walmarts and Amazons. I have a friend who's father owned a big local insurance agency. He told me how in his teenage years both he and his brother had hopes of taking over the family business. The father told them that it was there if they wanted it, but that he didn't think the industry was headed in a direction that would allow them to have the careers they were seeking. I see large family run nurseries selling or closing up shop after decades all the time. Travel agencies don't exist anymore. If you aren't a hair salon or a dry cleaner you dont really have a shot anymore. There is no way to replace these things.

Second, to become a high earner, you kind of need to have an ability to see where things are headed. Or as a teenager, be pushed in the right direction, or be lucky in terms of what your interests are at that age. Banking was en vogue in the 70's and 80's, 90's and 2000's it was internet, and I think now through the foreseeable future it'll be derivatives of biomedical engineering and programming. But even if you disagree, look at where it's "easy" to make big money as a w-2. The skillset needed for these jobs simply are not taught in 95% of the high schools in America. The ones that do give intros to these areas are generally private schools that most families cant afford. 

So, to the future generations, what do they do? The number of high paying jobs in the financial industry is shrinking fast. Local family businesses in retail aren't there. And anything sales based is in the process of being phased out by the likes of big corporations who's sole goal was to squeeze margins and kill competitors, and automation. Real estate agent commissions are and will continue to get crushed, car dealerships are fighting the Tesla model, but there will be pressure there. Insurance is becoming available on agentless platforms, stocks are traded for $1 on IBKR and regardless everyone is buying index funds now, and outside of that what's left are a healthy, but not excessive number of jobs where one can make $40-50K a year being a cog.

I do think one of the biggest culprits are cheap rich people. The other biggest culprit is the government. And because these pieces of the problem are on opposite ends of the spectrum, they'll never be fixed. Government wants to steal from people who already carry the load so they can piss away the money on things that dont solve anything(like investigating helicopter noise and Russian people), while wealthy people and corporations, pissed off that the government is constantly trying to poach what they earn, squeeze every penny left and as a result low and mid level employees get squeezed.

Simply look around you - who are the 'other' rich?
I see a lots of tradespeople (plumber, welder, mechanic, brewer, dentist, coder, trucker, framer); who built their own businesses.
I see lots of property flippers; buying low, fixing up, & selling on at a higher price.
I see lots of dealers; drugs, pimps, salespeople, you name it.

I also see the attitude that says you aren't rich unless you have a high paying, 'high status', job. The attitude that I'm the guy/gal who commands empires, you're just the grunt that I tell what to do. And one of those people who actively tells my kids NOT to pursue the trades, 'cause its low status. Perhaps you're just reaping what you've sown?

We can make anything, anywhere; but we need someone HERE to fix it when it breaks. You don't buy a new car when it breaks, or buy a new house when the washroom floods. You pay a trucker HERE to remove your garbage HERE, and deliver your food to a grocery store HERE. You pay the coder HERE to re-boot the robot on the production line, or that production stops. No tradesperson, & you're f'kd, & the more digital we become the more they are needed. That high paying job? We have AI and robots for that.

The bonus we all get, is an end to the illegal immigration hysteria.
If I have trade certificates, and that illegal doesn't; I get the job, because I'm skilled - & that illegal isn't. I don't HAVE to be union. 
And when that illegal eventually gets that US trade certificate? They go home, using that certificate to enjoy a standard of living many times better than it would have been had they remained in the US. US racism remains alive and well, & doing its job very effectively.

No need for a 'wall'. Save the money and spend it on expanded trade schools instead.
'Cause the next time you see todays illegal, you'll see him/her as a skilled legal immigrant; as they don't want to be 'illegal' either.
And you'll have a large pool of US certified trades people to draw on, should you ever fall short.

If you really want to 'Make America Great Again', you're going to have to replace infrastructure in a big way.
Where are the tradespeople coming from?

SD

 



Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: Spekulatius on February 10, 2019, 09:21:39 AM
I love her newest claim that Hispanics aren't subject to immigration laws.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/02/08/aoc-ice-remarks-n2541027

The amount of attention a freshman Rep gets when the POTUS says the same types of stuff is why we have both. She can't even bring a bill to the floor without Pelosi's approval. She is far from the only Rep to say something stupid. There are also numerous Congressmen, cabinet members, gov't officials, ect that have done something that others have been forced to resign for.

"North Korea, under the leadership of Kim Jong Un, will become a great Economic Powerhouse. He may surprise some but he won’t surprise me, because I have gotten to know him & fully understand how capable he is. North Korea will become a different kind of Rocket - an Economic one!"

As long as everyone blames the other side instead of finding compromise, we'll sink deeper and the perpetual pessimists will say "told you America is Rome". It's willfull failure.

AOC is using Trump’s playbook. Whoever screams the loudest nonsense wins.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: MarkS on February 10, 2019, 09:53:15 AM
The biggest issue is so much entrenched in "the system" that it'll never get addressed. Yes, upward mobility is big. But it's two tiered IMO. It also has a lot to do with education.

First, one of the tried and true mom and pop ways to make a living was to own and operate a local business. These were predominantly retail, and the nest egg was paying off your mortgage and owning both the business and the real estate. This way is largely gone because of the Walmarts and Amazons. I have a friend who's father owned a big local insurance agency. He told me how in his teenage years both he and his brother had hopes of taking over the family business. The father told them that it was there if they wanted it, but that he didn't think the industry was headed in a direction that would allow them to have the careers they were seeking. I see large family run nurseries selling or closing up shop after decades all the time. Travel agencies don't exist anymore. If you aren't a hair salon or a dry cleaner you dont really have a shot anymore. There is no way to replace these things.

Second, to become a high earner, you kind of need to have an ability to see where things are headed. Or as a teenager, be pushed in the right direction, or be lucky in terms of what your interests are at that age. Banking was en vogue in the 70's and 80's, 90's and 2000's it was internet, and I think now through the foreseeable future it'll be derivatives of biomedical engineering and programming. But even if you disagree, look at where it's "easy" to make big money as a w-2. The skillset needed for these jobs simply are not taught in 95% of the high schools in America. The ones that do give intros to these areas are generally private schools that most families cant afford. 

So, to the future generations, what do they do? The number of high paying jobs in the financial industry is shrinking fast. Local family businesses in retail aren't there. And anything sales based is in the process of being phased out by the likes of big corporations who's sole goal was to squeeze margins and kill competitors, and automation. Real estate agent commissions are and will continue to get crushed, car dealerships are fighting the Tesla model, but there will be pressure there. Insurance is becoming available on agentless platforms, stocks are traded for $1 on IBKR and regardless everyone is buying index funds now, and outside of that what's left are a healthy, but not excessive number of jobs where one can make $40-50K a year being a cog.

I do think one of the biggest culprits are cheap rich people. The other biggest culprit is the government. And because these pieces of the problem are on opposite ends of the spectrum, they'll never be fixed. Government wants to steal from people who already carry the load so they can piss away the money on things that dont solve anything(like investigating helicopter noise and Russian people), while wealthy people and corporations, pissed off that the government is constantly trying to poach what they earn, squeeze every penny left and as a result low and mid level employees get squeezed.

Simply look around you - who are the 'other' rich?
I see a lots of tradespeople (plumber, welder, mechanic, brewer, dentist, coder, trucker, framer); who built their own businesses.
I see lots of property flippers; buying low, fixing up, & selling on at a higher price.
I see lots of dealers; drugs, pimps, salespeople, you name it.

I also see the attitude that says you aren't rich unless you have a high paying, 'high status', job. The attitude that I'm the guy/gal who commands empires, you're just the grunt that I tell what to do. And one of those people who actively tells my kids NOT to pursue the trades, 'cause its low status. Perhaps you're just reaping what you've sown?

We can make anything, anywhere; but we need someone HERE to fix it when it breaks. You don't buy a new car when it breaks, or buy a new house when the washroom floods. You pay a trucker HERE to remove your garbage HERE, and deliver your food to a grocery store HERE. You pay the coder HERE to re-boot the robot on the production line, or that production stops. No tradesperson, & you're f'kd, & the more digital we become the more they are needed. That high paying job? We have AI and robots for that.

The bonus we all get, is an end to the illegal immigration hysteria.
If I have trade certificates, and that illegal doesn't; I get the job, because I'm skilled - & that illegal isn't. I don't HAVE to be union. 
And when that illegal eventually gets that US trade certificate? They go home, using that certificate to enjoy a standard of living many times better than it would have been had they remained in the US. US racism remains alive and well, & doing its job very effectively.

No need for a 'wall'. Save the money and spend it on expanded trade schools instead.
'Cause the next time you see todays illegal, you'll see him/her as a skilled legal immigrant; as they don't want to be 'illegal' either.
And you'll have a large pool of US certified trades people to draw on, should you ever fall short.

If you really want to 'Make America Great Again', you're going to have to replace infrastructure in a big way.
Where are the tradespeople coming from?

SD

 





Hi Sharper

You might be understating the impact on AI on the labor force.  I can easily envision many of the jobs you're describing to eventually be performed by AI, like refuse collection, self driving trucks and more.   Many people believe that a Universal Basic Income will be needed as AI become ubiquitous.  See https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/20/richard-branson-a-i-will-make-universal-basic-income-necessary.html
Branson is just one of many - I'm not trying to single him out.   If this is the case, then a UBI is another very good reason to eliminate illegal immigration. 
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: Read the Footnotes on February 10, 2019, 09:59:11 AM
AOC is using Trump’s playbook. Whoever screams the loudest nonsense wins.
I agree. Both are dangerous because:

1. Loud and attention seeking
2. Frequently full of nonsense
3. Populist
4. Exploiting divisive rhetoric
5. Successful at attracting attention by spewing nonsensical divisive populist rhetoric

It will be interesting to see if she will be successful at utilizing improvisation as a populist. It will also be interesting to see if she is capable of distracting, deflecting or denying if her previously held positions if they are proven to be nonsensical.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: Gregmal on February 10, 2019, 10:05:43 AM
The biggest issue is so much entrenched in "the system" that it'll never get addressed. Yes, upward mobility is big. But it's two tiered IMO. It also has a lot to do with education.

First, one of the tried and true mom and pop ways to make a living was to own and operate a local business. These were predominantly retail, and the nest egg was paying off your mortgage and owning both the business and the real estate. This way is largely gone because of the Walmarts and Amazons. I have a friend who's father owned a big local insurance agency. He told me how in his teenage years both he and his brother had hopes of taking over the family business. The father told them that it was there if they wanted it, but that he didn't think the industry was headed in a direction that would allow them to have the careers they were seeking. I see large family run nurseries selling or closing up shop after decades all the time. Travel agencies don't exist anymore. If you aren't a hair salon or a dry cleaner you dont really have a shot anymore. There is no way to replace these things.

Second, to become a high earner, you kind of need to have an ability to see where things are headed. Or as a teenager, be pushed in the right direction, or be lucky in terms of what your interests are at that age. Banking was en vogue in the 70's and 80's, 90's and 2000's it was internet, and I think now through the foreseeable future it'll be derivatives of biomedical engineering and programming. But even if you disagree, look at where it's "easy" to make big money as a w-2. The skillset needed for these jobs simply are not taught in 95% of the high schools in America. The ones that do give intros to these areas are generally private schools that most families cant afford. 

So, to the future generations, what do they do? The number of high paying jobs in the financial industry is shrinking fast. Local family businesses in retail aren't there. And anything sales based is in the process of being phased out by the likes of big corporations who's sole goal was to squeeze margins and kill competitors, and automation. Real estate agent commissions are and will continue to get crushed, car dealerships are fighting the Tesla model, but there will be pressure there. Insurance is becoming available on agentless platforms, stocks are traded for $1 on IBKR and regardless everyone is buying index funds now, and outside of that what's left are a healthy, but not excessive number of jobs where one can make $40-50K a year being a cog.

I do think one of the biggest culprits are cheap rich people. The other biggest culprit is the government. And because these pieces of the problem are on opposite ends of the spectrum, they'll never be fixed. Government wants to steal from people who already carry the load so they can piss away the money on things that dont solve anything(like investigating helicopter noise and Russian people), while wealthy people and corporations, pissed off that the government is constantly trying to poach what they earn, squeeze every penny left and as a result low and mid level employees get squeezed.

Simply look around you - who are the 'other' rich?
I see a lots of tradespeople (plumber, welder, mechanic, brewer, dentist, coder, trucker, framer); who built their own businesses.
I see lots of property flippers; buying low, fixing up, & selling on at a higher price.
I see lots of dealers; drugs, pimps, salespeople, you name it.

I also see the attitude that says you aren't rich unless you have a high paying, 'high status', job. The attitude that I'm the guy/gal who commands empires, you're just the grunt that I tell what to do. And one of those people who actively tells my kids NOT to pursue the trades, 'cause its low status. Perhaps you're just reaping what you've sown?

We can make anything, anywhere; but we need someone HERE to fix it when it breaks. You don't buy a new car when it breaks, or buy a new house when the washroom floods. You pay a trucker HERE to remove your garbage HERE, and deliver your food to a grocery store HERE. You pay the coder HERE to re-boot the robot on the production line, or that production stops. No tradesperson, & you're f'kd, & the more digital we become the more they are needed. That high paying job? We have AI and robots for that.

The bonus we all get, is an end to the illegal immigration hysteria.
If I have trade certificates, and that illegal doesn't; I get the job, because I'm skilled - & that illegal isn't. I don't HAVE to be union. 
And when that illegal eventually gets that US trade certificate? They go home, using that certificate to enjoy a standard of living many times better than it would have been had they remained in the US. US racism remains alive and well, & doing its job very effectively.

No need for a 'wall'. Save the money and spend it on expanded trade schools instead.
'Cause the next time you see todays illegal, you'll see him/her as a skilled legal immigrant; as they don't want to be 'illegal' either.
And you'll have a large pool of US certified trades people to draw on, should you ever fall short.

If you really want to 'Make America Great Again', you're going to have to replace infrastructure in a big way.
Where are the tradespeople coming from?

SD

Tradespeople are important, but they are getting squeezed too. I dont really think there is much merit to the "status" rich. Those, at least from my experience are generally rich people/people chasing that "lifestyle"; mainly because they are already secure. What I think most refer to, is the ability to put in an honest 25 years somewhere and have a reasonable expectation to retire comfortably. That used to be the norm. Now people are told to put off retiring until 68...

But getting back to what you describe, there are two key themes. One, almost all of those trade job revolve around housing. You mention home flippers, but this is hardly something one should have the expectation of a good long career in; it is IMO speculative. Second, this is another rich guy hobby/job. Its very capital intensive. You need to know the trades, yes, but if you dont have a big personal bankroll, you need access to capital. Hardly something Joe Jr can get into out of trade school. hardly something a mid 30's bloke with 50K in his savings account should pursue either. Also, maybe right now in Canada where housing is popping, sure, you have greater opportunity. But...

Getting to the second theme, the tradespeople. These are exactly the type of jobs getting eliminated. The mechanic? Its hard not to notice that this business, once dominated by mom and pop garage shops, is now owned by big corporate franchises like Midas, STS/Mavis, etc... The mom and pop shops get squeezed on price by the big guys with resources, or even things as simple as the ability to offer financing on that $2000 fix. Newer mechanics almost always end up gravitating to the bigger chains because they pay and benefits are better and there is promise of upward mobility; but again, look at how many guys working at the Sears Auto or Jiffy Lube have been doing oil changes for 15+ years. Do these guys earn livable wages? I suppose on average, yes. $30-45 an hour is what they typically get, but they dont have much upside from there.

Coders and Dentists? These again are jobs with huge advantages to those who already have resources. Ever look at the types of kids going to medical/dental school? Or the kids majoring in computer science?

Plumbers and HVAC guys again, like mechanics can make a "livable" wage. But again, are all fighting for the same piece of pie, reliant on housing, and bound to the 2am service call on a Sunday morning otherwise risk losing a valued customer. I'd also point out something quite scary on these fronts, something that I thought would have received more attention here, but apparently went unnoticed, and that was Brookfields acquisition of Enercare. Without going crazy into more detail, This should cause any tradesman in the home services area to shit their pants. These guys are in the process of taking more or less any "home service" and turning it into a utility. Bye bye local, small businesses!

Truckers? I kind of agree there. I dont know about in Canada but in America there is a SEVERE shortage of truckers and its gotten so bad that some of these companies have to make obscene offers; Like $55 an hour, with guaranteed 4 nights a week home, month vacation time, great benefits, and still, no one wants to do it...Maybe more people should. I'm curious to look into this more as to why its such a non starter for people, but to say that these people thrive isn't really accurate. But then again, look ahead 5 years and how much of this gets eaten by self driving trucks/automated delivery service?

So all in all, I think the only people petty enough not to pursue jobs or careers because they are "low status" are generally people already doing ok and now more worried about keeping up with the Jonses rather than making sure their mortgage is paid or kid has a small college fund.The solution to me, is somewhere in the ballpark of local/state government creating incentives and/or credits that let the small business compete vs the Goliaths. I am generally all for capitalism, but if we step back and look at where we are, it seems to be somewhere around the 8th inning in Monopoly. Everyone had fun and it worked for a while(a quite long time actually according to historical standards), but now, the deck is highly stacked against anyone new to the game.


Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: cubsfan on February 10, 2019, 10:28:07 AM
AOC is using Trump’s playbook. Whoever screams the loudest nonsense wins.
I agree. Both are dangerous because:

1. Loud and attention seeking
2. Frequently full of nonsense
3. Populist
4. Exploiting divisive rhetoric
5. Successful at attracting attention by spewing nonsensical divisive populist rhetoric

It will be interesting to see if she will be successful at utilizing improvisation as a populist. It will also be interesting to see if she is capable of distracting, deflecting or denying if her previously held positions if they are proven to be nonsensical.

There is certainly nothing wrong with being a populist, when government fails to represent your interest.
Trump was elected because he took his message directly to the people - when neither party (or the DC swamp) paid attention to the middle class in this country.
His populist approach was the reason he was elected - not being beholden to either party or any lobbying groups.

And they all hate him for his success because it threatens their existence and the political status quo.

Just think, a guy with Twitter, no money to speak of - can actually get elected in this country without the backing of a political machine - just speak
directly to the people with your message - and let the people decide.

We should all hope for more populist success in America.

Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: rkbabang on February 10, 2019, 11:30:17 AM
That green new deal document never existed. Who are you going to believe me or your own lying eyes?

https://freebeacon.com/politics/ocasio-cortez-gaslights-green-new-deal/
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: Read the Footnotes on February 10, 2019, 11:46:21 AM

There is certainly nothing wrong with being a populist, when government fails to represent your interest.


You are right. There is nothing wrong with being a populist. Here's a definition for populist that I grabbed off the web:

Quote
a person, especially a politician, who strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.
"he ran as a populist on an anticorruption platform"

I didn't say there was anything wrong with populism by itself. Populism in the right hands could be admirable.

I stand by my statement that populism in combination with the other traits and behaviors I listed should be concerning.

One danger of populism is that even good people could become drunk on the power of populism. Think of populism like "the force". It has a dark side and some won't be able to resist it, or won't even want to try.

Many populists have later been seen to be disingenuous and to have manipulated the population they appealed to. Sometimes the damage done is small, sometimes it is calamitous.

Like conmen, disingenuous populists appeal to peoples emotions and interests, and like conmen a disingenuous populist is only successful when they succeed in charming their prey to the point the prey can't tell they are being conned. Even after the con is exposed, some people will refuse to change their opinion. There were people after the fall of the Third Reich who continued to believe in Hitler and the National Socialist propaganda and refused to believe evidence to the contrary. These were people who wouldn't believe that maybe the Nazi's stretched the truth a little bit.

I know for a fact that a huge portion of the US population believes Bernie Madoff was solely responsible for the fraud. There continue to be newspaper articles that are still anchored to Bernie's original message that he acted alone. The fact that plenty of Madoff employees and family members have gone to prison is totally lost on these people. Anyone who tried to prove that Bernie was a fraud before his fall was probably just going to anger people and look like a kook. Harry Markopolos proved that people would respond that way, but unfortunately, Markopolos was right.

I am not trying to say that anyone is Hitler or Bernie Madoff. Even if I believed that, I don't think it would be productive to say so. I am saying that populism in certain hands can be very dangerous. Certain personalities and behaviors make that risk much higher and people tend to be very bad at assessing when they are being conned.

I also believe people tend to underestimate these risks in spite of historical precedent. If the risks were not underestimated, then despots would not be so successful at using populism early in their rise to power. Plus we in the US and Canada (and many other countries) were blessed with only relatively mild innocuous forms of populism for a long period. If we had recent experience with populism in its worst forms, experience that some other nations have, we would likely be much more wary. In fact the mere fact that we have the wealth and luxury to spend time reading and posting on this board is probably extremely highly correlated with not being a recent victim of the worst examples of populism gone awry.

Saying that there is no risk to populism in the wrong hands is like saying that there is no risk of real estate prices falling in 2006. Just because there hasn't been a horrible recent domestic experience does not mean there is no risk.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: cubsfan on February 10, 2019, 12:14:40 PM
I think you've lost sight of the fact that we live in a free country where free speech is sacred and protected.
The Nazi's did not have free speech or a bill of rights for the individual.

Gregmal, Cardboard and I can call Ocasio-Cortez an idiot, quite freely, and help to keep her in check with reasonable arguments
and no free of retribution. The Brownshirts are not going to show up at our door - beat us up or murder us.

You can freely call Trump a racist and an idiot, etc - without those fears as well. You have a megaphone, called free speech, that
you can use to advance your argument.

We can all disagree and yell at each other on this board - and it gets emotional and tense - but we try to convince others of our positions freely.
Democracy is ugly and messy sometimes - and you may not like my position, and I may not like yours - but it's better than violence.

That is not Germany before the Nazi's. Congress can keep Trump in check - if they feel they need to. They can respond to his State of the Union
without being blacked out by the propaganda minister. Then you have the courts to keep both the President and Congress in check.
Insuring your individual bill of rights.

IF you are a conman - I can destroy you with a powerful argument, so long as I can convince you of the merits.

What we have to be careful of - is the feeling that the "elites" know what is better for "Joe six pack" than Joe does.
That is where the populist comes in - goes directly to Joe - and bypasses the know-it-all elites.
And the political elites HATE IT. 


Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: LC on February 10, 2019, 12:22:24 PM
Just some thoughts:

-We're a long way from self driving cars. Decade-plus. Truckers will be fine for the time being.
-On AI in general - it is a real possibility that a lot of traditional jobs may not exist. Combined with a falling cost of human capital and this is not a good trend for the average person.
-Populism is "bad" because the underlying policies only are promoted because they're popular - not because they are reasonable based on their merits.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: LC on February 10, 2019, 12:29:51 PM
Quote
What we have to be careful of - is the feeling that the "elites" know what is better for "Joe six pack" than Joe does.
What's the evidence for that?

As you rightly said, we live in a free country.

"Joe six pack" has been free to lean whatever skills, invest however he wants, for the history of this country.

And yet - we have seen the "elites" earn more income, control more assets, grow richer and more powerful, and on an increasing trend.

So maybe over the last 50-60 years, "Joe six pack" didn't know better?
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: MarkS on February 10, 2019, 12:43:17 PM
Just some thoughts:

-We're a long way from self driving cars. Decade-plus. Truckers will be fine for the time being.
-On AI in general - it is a real possibility that a lot of traditional jobs may not exist. Combined with a falling cost of human capital and this is not a good trend for the average person.
-Populism is "bad" because the underlying policies only are promoted because they're popular - not because they are reasonable based on their merits.

The technology will be ready before 10 years.  But Congress will certainly need to approve the technology.  So based on their inability to even negotiate a bill to reopen government - other than a CR - it may be more than they can handle. I may have to concur with you.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: LC on February 10, 2019, 12:46:03 PM
Isn't the problem that the self driving technology simply cannot manage other human drivers on the road? In other words, it needs near-100% adoption to actually work?

I'm no expert - just regurgitating criticism that I've read.

But robotics, AI technology - these are all moving forward. This will put continuous pressure on the need for human capital, which is going to depress returns on human capital.

Eventually society will need to deal with this.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: SharperDingaan on February 10, 2019, 12:46:14 PM
A quick rebuttal, then move on.

From the 'risk' perspective (ie: Taleb), the tradesperson is essentially the anti-fragile 'taxi-driver'; the high-paid guy/gal is the fragile dinosour - essentially what we're both seeing. In the uncertain environment the taxi-driver is better off, however taxi-driving is cyclical; we don't know if the current time is 3am on a weeknight, or 1am on a saturday night. 

Fully agreed that AI is disruptive, and likely to displace millions. But no matter what, AI has to cross the digital/physical interface, and to do that, you need tradespeople - lots of them. Sensors break, software/hardware interfaces routinely fail, batteries/electronics typically work less well in hostile environments, etc. It's easy to create a digital record, but if there's no physical attachment to the digitally represented object, you have nothing. Talk to any policeman, or friend in low places.

Mass displacement is not new, routine (ie: mine, factory, industry closures), and almost always includes some kind of temporary subsidy. Usually it's early retirement without penalty. In Canada we've had UBI for a great many years - we just call it something else. When a Canadian retires at age 65, he/she will receive a 'collection' of various state pensions (CPP, GIS, OAS, etc.) - such that they create a minimum 'retirement' income of $X/year.   https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/campaigns/seniors.html?utm_source=google&utm_medium=sem&utm_campaign=seniors2018-2019&utm_content=cpp3

In Canada, a new tradesperson right out of school, has very seldom had it so good.
The old guys are retiring, and co-ops/apprenticeship programs are screaming for candidates. That new tradesperson is cheap, not tied down by family, and free to travel to some hostile places for experience and 'adventure' (ie: welders in Canada's North or East Coast off-shore). And if you sunsequently want to start your own business, and came through one of these programs; you have free access to lots of start-up expertise, accounting/finance infra-structure, and grants/cheap loans to get you off the ground. 

What a trades person can expect to do over their working life-time, has always been changeable.
Exactly as the taxi driver, it's whatever the requirement of the day is, and is charged accordingly. A digital dispatcher may collect calls at 2am, but a tradesperson still has to physically do the task, & at the price requested; no pay, no play. The tradesperson charges what the market will bear (ie: o/g in a boom), and you either pay up - or do the job yourself.

Most folks are not entrpreneurial, and this is no different in the trades as it is anywhere else. The top 20% will thrive, the bottom 20% will bankrupt, and everyone 'in-between' will muddle along. Sure, the 'average' takehome for a trade may be lower than for a profession, and more volatile; but so is the life-style cost. Different 'costs' for different folks, but if you're entrepreurial, the limit is just your own ability.

'Status' changes according to the times.
It used to be that for the 'professional women', the 'professional man' was the ideal partner; today its much more the entrpreneurial tradesperson. Fewer issues, and more appreciative of the 'value' of the partnership. Good on them, and a lesson to the rest of the male population!

Agreed the Small Business/Goliath deck has tilted against small business, but it's only if small business continues to do busness the same way. Goliaths can't turn on a time, and their reliance on LEGACY technology has turned them into dinosours. You might be big-box brick-n-mortar retail, but you're dead-in-the-water against my small-box on-line store delivering by amazon - and warehousing in the family basement. We both do the same thing, but we do it differently, and its a lot easier for me to steal YOUR lunch. If I'm that top entrepreneirial 20%, lets play!

It really means transformative change.
We know it's coming, and that 'same old' will be gone; but are demanding 'guarantees' - where there are none.
And we're having trouble seeing that 'denial' is not an option.

SD


 
 
 
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: Gregmal on February 10, 2019, 12:47:17 PM
Quote
What we have to be careful of - is the feeling that the "elites" know what is better for "Joe six pack" than Joe does.
What's the evidence for that?

As you rightly said, we live in a free country.

"Joe six pack" has been free to lean whatever skills, invest however he wants, for the history of this country.

And yet - we have seen the "elites" earn more income, control more assets, grow richer and more powerful, and on an increasing trend.

So maybe over the last 50-60 years, "Joe six pack" didn't know better?

When the elites control many of the resources, manipulating the masses is not hard. Again, it's odd because I'm usually on the other side of this argument, making the point that people are free to make their own choices, but there are certain areas that I think have gone too far. It's because of the establishment politicians and the financial elites. Why aren't people protesting the fact that high school seniors in America are typically taking the same math and science courses as 6th and 7th graders in many Asian countries? Why do congressmen need $175K a year(and some FOR LIFE), with gold plated benefits, TO SERVE? How is it that the government gets to dictate in MOST cases, who gets to start businesses, let alone regulate them, and tax them?

I mean look no further for the proof of influence than the moron Cortez brought to the SOTU address. The one who chased down Jeff Flake and for some reason tried to insinuate the some random person making up an allegation against Brett Kavanaugh has anything to do with her, or her children, or future generations of women??? Like how does that even make any sense. Then you find out she's just a misguided activist working for an organization funded by George Soros....

But wait, it gets even better. Because America, more than any other country, has so deeply ingrained the idea that people NEED education, we have a massive student loan crisis! Yet, despite this obsession with academia, hardly anyone is learning anything useful! Then you follow the money, and see where a lot of it comes from and where it goes and it all makes sense. The elites stay where they are, the establishment politicians keep their gigs, and majority remain stupid and handcuffed by the system.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: Read the Footnotes on February 10, 2019, 12:49:48 PM
I think you've lost sight of the fact that we live in a free country where free speech is sacred and protected.
The Nazi's did not have free speech or a bill of rights for the individual.
I have a degree in German. I studied German History in German, in Germany, and took graduate level German History courses in the US. Admittedly, that was a while ago and I wouldn't call myself an expert even at that time, but your comments make me suspect you might be either unaware of or too dismissive of the positive qualities of Germany and German society BEFORE the rise of Hitler. I don't believe Hitler could have come to power without a certain level of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Maybe you have a explanation of the rise of National Socialism that I am not aware of?

More importantly, my point was that populism can be dangerous whether it is on the right or left. Nothing more. I do not seek an argument and I will go back to my habit of not reading or responding to the politics section. I have the Politics section set to "ignore", which has made COB&F much more useful to me (thank you Sanjeev!).

Since I have politics set to ignore, I'm not even sure how I noticed the post from Speculatius, but I would not have posted here at all except that I thought the post from Speculatius was unusually concise, insightful, analytical, even-handed and free of bias especially for the politics section. My intent was to similarly to post something that might contribute to dispassionate, meaningful analysis based on the merits of the argument, and to complement Speculatius.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: Read the Footnotes on February 10, 2019, 01:12:39 PM

Just think, a guy with Twitter, no money to speak of - can actually get elected in this country

I'm not sure I understand. Are you admitting he's not as rich as he said he was? ;D
Which is it? It can't be both.  ;D
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: stahleyp on February 10, 2019, 01:13:51 PM
I agree with read. Populism can be good or bad. But I think most folks look at it as a good thing (well, the optimists anyway). I'd love to have a populist president. I come from a working class family so I can totally understand the appeal. But I don't think Trump is it.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: cubsfan on February 10, 2019, 01:47:26 PM
Quote
What we have to be careful of - is the feeling that the "elites" know what is better for "Joe six pack" than Joe does.
What's the evidence for that?

As you rightly said, we live in a free country.

"Joe six pack" has been free to lean whatever skills, invest however he wants, for the history of this country.

And yet - we have seen the "elites" earn more income, control more assets, grow richer and more powerful, and on an increasing trend.

So maybe over the last 50-60 years, "Joe six pack" didn't know better?

Great - so you are saying that because you are educated, etc - you know more than Joe Six Pack - you make the perfect elite.

I rest my case.  You know what's best for him - and his opinion doesn't count. Your vote is worth more than his.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: cubsfan on February 10, 2019, 01:53:17 PM

Just think, a guy with Twitter, no money to speak of - can actually get elected in this country

I'm not sure I understand. Are you admitting he's not as rich as he said he was? ;D
Which is it? It can't be both.  ;D

Yes it can be both - he didn't spend it.

I am say that Clinton had a $1B campaign fund and a HUGE ground game and organization behind her.
Trump had nothing - spent very little money and NO organization. He did have Twitter, he did know how to control the media
by being on Fox News every night or Morning Joe whenever he wanted to call in.

What the man did was genius - and he his resources were dwarfed by the Democratic Party - and even the Republicans - Jeb Bush had
a fortune to spend. 
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: cubsfan on February 10, 2019, 02:03:19 PM
I think you've lost sight of the fact that we live in a free country where free speech is sacred and protected.
The Nazi's did not have free speech or a bill of rights for the individual.
I have a degree in German. I studied German History in German, in Germany, and took graduate level German History courses in the US. Admittedly, that was a while ago and I wouldn't call myself an expert even at that time, but your comments make me suspect you might be either unaware of or too dismissive of the positive qualities of Germany and German society BEFORE the rise of Hitler. I don't believe Hitler could have come to power without a certain level of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Maybe you have a explanation of the rise of National Socialism that I am not aware of?

More importantly, my point was that populism can be dangerous whether it is on the right or left. Nothing more. I do not seek an argument and I will go back to my habit of not reading or responding to the politics section. I have the Politics section set to "ignore", which has made COB&F much more useful to me (thank you Sanjeev!).

Since I have politics set to ignore, I'm not even sure how I noticed the post from Speculatius, but I would not have posted here at all except that I thought the post from Speculatius was unusually concise, insightful, analytical, even-handed and free of bias especially for the politics section. My intent was to similarly to post something that might contribute to dispassionate, meaningful analysis based on the merits of the argument, and to complement Speculatius.

Don't take things so personally  - I am not trying to insult you. My last name is German - why do I have something against Germans all of a sudden?
Are you saying I hate Germans because I respond to your comments about the Nazis?

How is the Nazi party going to rise into power today in America?
It's the Democratic Left and University Elites that are trying to SNUFF OUT freedom of Speech - not the Right.
Ben Shapiro and Ann Coulter can't speak on college campuses, etc..

I could not disagree more - the best protection against tyranny is democracy and freedom of speech - populism has nothing to do with it.
A populist can keep crooked politicians and unbridled political power in check.

If you do not like Trump - there are many people that disagree with you.

I just think you are wrong - don't take it so personally. This is about debate.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: Read the Footnotes on February 10, 2019, 02:10:26 PM

Just think, a guy with Twitter, no money to speak of - can actually get elected in this country

I'm not sure I understand. Are you admitting he's not as rich as he said he was? ;D
Which is it? It can't be both.  ;D

Yes it can be both - he didn't spend it.

I am say that Clinton had a $1B campaign fund and a HUGE ground game and organization behind her.
Trump had nothing - spent very little money and NO organization. He did have Twitter, he did know how to control the media
by being on Fox News every night or Morning Joe whenever he wanted to call in.

What the man did was genius - and he his resources were dwarfed by the Democratic Party - and even the Republicans - Jeb Bush had
a fortune to spend.

Completely teasing you by the way, in case it wasn't obvious. I was trying to joke that it sounded like you were saying Trump grew up in a log cabin or something.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: cubsfan on February 10, 2019, 04:22:44 PM
I thought you were serious - apologies - peace brother!
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: LC on February 10, 2019, 04:40:40 PM
Quote
What we have to be careful of - is the feeling that the "elites" know what is better for "Joe six pack" than Joe does.
What's the evidence for that?

As you rightly said, we live in a free country.

"Joe six pack" has been free to lean whatever skills, invest however he wants, for the history of this country.

And yet - we have seen the "elites" earn more income, control more assets, grow richer and more powerful, and on an increasing trend.

So maybe over the last 50-60 years, "Joe six pack" didn't know better?

Great - so you are saying that because you are educated, etc - you know more than Joe Six Pack - you make the perfect elite.

I rest my case.  You know what's best for him - and his opinion doesn't count. Your vote is worth more than his.

You made a claim
I am asking what evidence you have to support it (as you provided none)
And the evidence I am presenting seems to contradict it

But by all means, feel free to assume "what I am saying"
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: cubsfan on February 10, 2019, 04:57:06 PM
My evidence is real simple LC.

The elites lost touch with the middle class. The traditional party of the working class, the Democrats ignored them.
Their party thought the serious issues were identity politics, climate change, LGBT rights and a bunch of stuff most of
the middle class could give a shit about. And the same can be said for the Republican candidates - their message
was totally different than Trumps - they just promised more of the same political status quo. No change. People had enough already.

But the traditional protector of the middle class, the Democrats, were unseated by a populist with a message - Trump.
He cared about their most important issue: Jobs.

That is how the "Elite" wing of the Democratic Party TOTALLY blew an election they should have won - and were predicted to win in a landslide.

The interesting part:  They seem to have learned nothing - and continue to double down on things that don't matter to the middle class.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: LC on February 10, 2019, 05:10:50 PM
Quote
That is how the "Elite" wing of the Democratic Party TOTALLY blew an election they should have won - and were predicted to win in a landslide.

While you may be right, what you've provided is a narrative of the 2016 election, not evidence of "joe six pack" knowing best.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: Gregmal on February 10, 2019, 05:13:31 PM
Quote
What we have to be careful of - is the feeling that the "elites" know what is better for "Joe six pack" than Joe does.
What's the evidence for that?

As you rightly said, we live in a free country.

"Joe six pack" has been free to lean whatever skills, invest however he wants, for the history of this country.

And yet - we have seen the "elites" earn more income, control more assets, grow richer and more powerful, and on an increasing trend.

So maybe over the last 50-60 years, "Joe six pack" didn't know better?

Great - so you are saying that because you are educated, etc - you know more than Joe Six Pack - you make the perfect elite.

I rest my case.  You know what's best for him - and his opinion doesn't count. Your vote is worth more than his.

You made a claim
I am asking what evidence you have to support it (as you provided none)
And the evidence I am presenting seems to contradict it

But by all means, feel free to assume "what I am saying"

Its amazing how many times you cant even argue the same line of logic consistently. I mean isn't the crux of, at least what liberals used to stand for is that we need to live and let live? I mean even I, a conservative, can't think of a scenario where it would be right for anyone to interfere with the day to day lives of another individual because they are colored different than I. Same thing goes for people who happen to be, let's just call it, "unorthodox" with their sexual preferences or whatever. And yea, the same thing applies to just regular old normal folks. Yet while people like LC will argue til they are blue in the face in favor of letting every foreigner under the sun stampede in here and rape our resources, they still openly embrace elitist stances that more or less can be described as "I know what is better for you than you do", but again, only when it comes to certain "segments" of the population. Oddly enough these segments more often than not come down to people that can be described as regular old run of the mill middle class...Quite odd...It really does at times make me think that the entire goal of the Democratic Party is just to placate minority groups, knowing that they will soon be the majority and the ticket to power. And part of doing that is to shit all over normal, middle class folks, especially if they are white.

The party goal should be, let's elevate EVERYONE, instead, it's lets bring everyone down to the same level. A real shame. Joe six pack shouldn't need to "know" anything. He should be able to chose to do whatever he wants and live with the consequences. Not live his life and face the consequences of some scoundrel politician looking to win favor of people who dont work or pay taxes.

EDIT: I think I can simplify the above. People like LC have entirely different positions on things when it comes to telling Joe six pack what to do, versus when it comes to telling Jose six pack what to do. Thats become the defining characteristic of the left.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: LC on February 10, 2019, 05:20:16 PM
Quote
they still openly embrace elitist stances that more or less can be described as "I know what is better for you than you do", but again, only when it comes to certain "segments" of the population
Quite an imagination you have, Greg.

I am not embracing this stance - I am merely saying that there is some evidence that people do not, in fact, "know whats best for them".

Knowing this fact (or at least acknowledging the lack of evidence to the contrary) means we should proceed with caution.

I would also suggest the same caution before you make posts assuming my position - as you have done frequently.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: Gregmal on February 10, 2019, 05:23:13 PM
Quote
they still openly embrace elitist stances that more or less can be described as "I know what is better for you than you do", but again, only when it comes to certain "segments" of the population
Quite an imagination you have, Greg.

I am not embracing this stance - I am merely saying that there is some evidence that people do not, in fact, "know whats best for them".

Knowing this fact (or at least acknowledging the lack of evidence to the contrary) means we should proceed with caution.

People should be able to do whatever they want to do(freedom). They should also be left to live with the consequences of their actions and choices(responsibility). You liberals like to give certain "types" bailouts and the option to "abort", while telling others what they should be doing with their lives...The definition of hypocrisy.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: cubsfan on February 10, 2019, 05:57:46 PM
Quote
That is how the "Elite" wing of the Democratic Party TOTALLY blew an election they should have won - and were predicted to win in a landslide.

While you may be right, what you've provided is a narrative of the 2016 election, not evidence of "joe six pack" knowing best.

LC - you really make me laugh sometimes. You and your "evidence".  I'm shocked you disagree!
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: LC on February 10, 2019, 05:59:30 PM
Who needs facts when we have narratives  ::)
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: Gregmal on February 10, 2019, 06:02:24 PM
Quote
That is how the "Elite" wing of the Democratic Party TOTALLY blew an election they should have won - and were predicted to win in a landslide.

While you may be right, what you've provided is a narrative of the 2016 election, not evidence of "joe six pack" knowing best.

LC - you really make me laugh sometimes. You and your "evidence".  I'm shocked you disagree!

Joe six pack doesn't know what's best for him. Jose six pack needs another chance and more government assistance. You should know better by now!
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: cubsfan on February 10, 2019, 06:22:56 PM
It really does at times make me think that the entire goal of the Democratic Party is just to placate minority groups, knowing that they will soon be the majority and the ticket to power.

Well that IS the entire goal of the Democratic Party. It's so easy to see. So many of their leaders voted for a wall time after time.
Then they figured out that unfettered illegal immigration flipped California permanently Blue.  And the light bulb went on.

So they changed their position with the hope of flipping Arizona, New Mexico,  Nevada, Texas, etc permanently Blue.

And in the process alienated the middle class.

Now they are just doubling down on failure at this point. (well, I guess we will know in the next election)
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: muscleman on February 10, 2019, 06:26:30 PM
It really does at times make me think that the entire goal of the Democratic Party is just to placate minority groups, knowing that they will soon be the majority and the ticket to power.

Well that IS the entire goal of the Democratic Party. It's so easy to see. So many of their leaders voted for a wall time after time.
Then they figured out that unfettered illegal immigration flipped California permanently Blue.  And the light bulb went on.

So they changed their position with the hope of flipping Arizona, New Mexico,  Nevada, Texas, etc permanently Blue.

And in the process alienated the middle class.

Now they are just doubling down on failure at this point. (well, I guess we will know in the next election)

Totally agree!
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: rkbabang on February 13, 2019, 05:47:27 AM
I thought these were going to replace air travel? It's almost like the socialists are completely insane.

"Originally the project was expected to cost $33 billion and to be completed next year. It ended up reaching $77 billion and, per one projection made last March, could have ended up growing to $98 billion. Canceling the SF-LA route must seem to Newsom like a massive savings at this stage of the sunk-cost dilemma."

California abandons high-speed rail line between LA and San Francisco (https://hotair.com/archives/2019/02/12/green-monster-california-abandons-high-speed-rail-line-la-san-francisco/)
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: Castanza on February 13, 2019, 06:12:17 AM
Quote
they still openly embrace elitist stances that more or less can be described as "I know what is better for you than you do", but again, only when it comes to certain "segments" of the population
Quite an imagination you have, Greg.

I am not embracing this stance - I am merely saying that there is some evidence that people do not, in fact, "know whats best for them".

Knowing this fact (or at least acknowledging the lack of evidence to the contrary) means we should proceed with caution.

I would also suggest the same caution before you make posts assuming my position - as you have done frequently.

LC the very fact that we see increased regulation, increased laws, increased social programs, should be evidence enough that the government thinks it knows what's best for you. Just last month I had to have an inspector come into my house and look at the screw patterns on my drywall to make sure it was "safe." Only once I paid $100 and had this approved was I allowed to put mud over it. Sure, this is on the local level, but the principle is the same. Government is getting involved in things they have no business knowings.

It's not the governments job to play mommy and daddy for its citizens.

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the State. They forget that the State lives at the expense of everyone. " Frederic Bastiat

“Freedom is not empowerment. Empowerment is what the Serbs have in Bosnia. Anybody can grab a gun and be empowered. It's not entitlement. An entitlement is what people on welfare get, and how free are they? It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights -- the "right" to education, the "right" to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery -- hay and a barn for human cattle. There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.” P.J. O'Rourke
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: LC on February 13, 2019, 10:52:44 AM
LC the very fact that we see increased regulation, increased laws, increased social programs, should be evidence enough that the government thinks it knows what's best for you. Just last month I had to have an inspector come into my house and look at the screw patterns on my drywall to make sure it was "safe." Only once I paid $100 and had this approved was I allowed to put mud over it. Sure, this is on the local level, but the principle is the same. Government is getting involved in things they have no business knowings.
Yeah so this is question around regulation, correct?

We've got some anarchists on this board who will happily welcome you into their ranks  ;D

I agree not all regulations are "good". Some are outdated, some are lobbied by industry to provide barriers to entry, some are created simply to siphon rents for government, and some are genuinely sensible.

For example, what if you put all your drywall screws through the romex and it started an electrical fire, and burned down your house and died? Or even worse if it burned down half the block, and threw out the transformer and the neighborhood lost power?

Building codes exist for a few reasons:
1- the homeowner's safety and assurance
2- the safety and assurance of your neighbors
3- shared lower costs of insurance premiums
4- general ease of burden on shared services (utility services/repairs, firefighters, ambulances, etc.)
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: MarkS on February 13, 2019, 11:17:12 AM
LC the very fact that we see increased regulation, increased laws, increased social programs, should be evidence enough that the government thinks it knows what's best for you. Just last month I had to have an inspector come into my house and look at the screw patterns on my drywall to make sure it was "safe." Only once I paid $100 and had this approved was I allowed to put mud over it. Sure, this is on the local level, but the principle is the same. Government is getting involved in things they have no business knowings.
Yeah so this is question around regulation, correct?

We've got some anarchists on this board who will happily welcome you into their ranks  ;D

I agree not all regulations are "good". Some are outdated, some are lobbied by industry to provide barriers to entry, some are created simply to siphon rents for government, and some are genuinely sensible.

For example, what if you put all your drywall screws through the romex and it started an electrical fire, and burned down your house and died? Or even worse if it burned down half the block, and threw out the transformer and the neighborhood lost power?

Building codes exist for a few reasons:
1- the homeowner's safety and assurance
2- the safety and assurance of your neighbors
3- shared lower costs of insurance premiums
4- general ease of burden on shared services (utility services/repairs, firefighters, ambulances, etc.)

LC

do you really believe someone inspecting hung sheet rock can tell if the screws are puncturing the romex? ???
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: Castanza on February 13, 2019, 12:41:39 PM
LC the very fact that we see increased regulation, increased laws, increased social programs, should be evidence enough that the government thinks it knows what's best for you. Just last month I had to have an inspector come into my house and look at the screw patterns on my drywall to make sure it was "safe." Only once I paid $100 and had this approved was I allowed to put mud over it. Sure, this is on the local level, but the principle is the same. Government is getting involved in things they have no business knowings.
Yeah so this is question around regulation, correct?

We've got some anarchists on this board who will happily welcome you into their ranks  ;D

I agree not all regulations are "good". Some are outdated, some are lobbied by industry to provide barriers to entry, some are created simply to siphon rents for government, and some are genuinely sensible.

For example, what if you put all your drywall screws through the romex and it started an electrical fire, and burned down your house and died? Or even worse if it burned down half the block, and threw out the transformer and the neighborhood lost power?

Building codes exist for a few reasons:
1- the homeowner's safety and assurance
2- the safety and assurance of your neighbors
3- shared lower costs of insurance premiums
4- general ease of burden on shared services (utility services/repairs, firefighters, ambulances, etc.)

Wrong....that would be called a racket...What's next? Every private home be required to purchase a fireproof cabinet to store gasoline and all small engines? There is a line that's being crossed. Btw if you're competent enough to hang sheet rock then you're competent enough to know that you don't run Romex on the face of a stud....
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: LC on February 13, 2019, 01:04:04 PM
Quote
What's next? Every private home be required to purchase a fireproof cabinet to store gasoline and all small engines?

Or crazy things like homeowners insurance, car insurance, etc., right?

I mean, the only actual point your argument leads to is either:
(1) a rationalization of some regulations, in which case I agree and have already said as much, or
(2) a removal of all regulations, in which case I've again already mentioned how happily the anarchist board members will welcome you to their ranks.

Otherwise you are just complaining that "the big bad government" made you pay for a code inspection. What a tragedy.  ::)
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: rkbabang on February 13, 2019, 01:17:16 PM
LC the very fact that we see increased regulation, increased laws, increased social programs, should be evidence enough that the government thinks it knows what's best for you. Just last month I had to have an inspector come into my house and look at the screw patterns on my drywall to make sure it was "safe." Only once I paid $100 and had this approved was I allowed to put mud over it. Sure, this is on the local level, but the principle is the same. Government is getting involved in things they have no business knowings.
Yeah so this is question around regulation, correct?

We've got some anarchists on this board who will happily welcome you into their ranks  ;D

I agree not all regulations are "good". Some are outdated, some are lobbied by industry to provide barriers to entry, some are created simply to siphon rents for government, and some are genuinely sensible.

For example, what if you put all your drywall screws through the romex and it started an electrical fire, and burned down your house and died? Or even worse if it burned down half the block, and threw out the transformer and the neighborhood lost power?

Building codes exist for a few reasons:
1- the homeowner's safety and assurance
2- the safety and assurance of your neighbors
3- shared lower costs of insurance premiums
4- general ease of burden on shared services (utility services/repairs, firefighters, ambulances, etc.)

Wrong....that would be called a racket...What's next? Every private home be required to purchase a fireproof cabinet to store gasoline and all small engines? There is a line that's being crossed. Btw if you're competent enough to hang sheet rock then you're competent enough to know that you don't run Romex on the face of a stud....

Do you know how explosive gasoline is?  Should regular people even be able to buy and store that in there homes without a license and explosives training.   You know this is what will happen once 90+% of the cars on the road become electric.   The moment the government decides to highly control gasoline is the moment there will be major news stories of mass murders carried out with gasoline bombs.  You'll see groups "Moms Against Gas" holding die-ins in front of gas stations.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: Castanza on February 13, 2019, 01:20:54 PM
Quote
What's next? Every private home be required to purchase a fireproof cabinet to store gasoline and all small engines?

Or crazy things like homeowners insurance, car insurance, etc., right?

I mean, the only actual point your argument leads to is either:
(1) a rationalization of some regulations, in which case I agree and have already said as much, or
(2) a removal of all regulations, in which case I've again already mentioned how happily the anarchist board members will welcome you to their ranks.

Otherwise you are just complaining that "the big bad government" made you pay for a code inspection. What a tragedy.  ::)

Those are private companies. If they want to send out a consultant to look at my drywall screws before the insure me fine. I'll either accept their offer or find another insurer who doesn't care. Also chances are if they do require an inspection, they will send out an employee to do it free of charge.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: MarkS on February 13, 2019, 04:46:31 PM
Dr. Watson (aka LC)

Costanza wrote in pertinent part:

"Just last month I had to have an inspector come into my house and look at the screw patterns on my drywall to make sure it was "safe." Only once I paid $100 and had this approved was I allowed to put mud over it. "

In a passionate ode to government regulation you responded in pertinent part with:

"For example, what if you put all your drywall screws through the romex and it started an electrical fire, and burned down your house and died? Or even worse if it burned down half the block, and threw out the transformer and the neighborhood lost power?"

 I really would love to understand how you can claim that an inspector after sheet rock is hung could determine if the drywall screws went through the romex when the sheet rock is covering the romex?




Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: LC on February 14, 2019, 11:56:14 AM
I really would love to understand how you can claim that an inspector after sheet rock is hung could determine if the drywall screws went through the romex when the sheet rock is covering the romex?

Mark, please I implore you to do your own critical thinking. I mean, aren't you the one complaining about the quality of posts?

It's the mark of an honest man to take his own advice.

Castanza already gave you the answer to your question, anyways.

And to be frank - the enforcement of these items should be flexible and rational- which is a human problem. Inspectors in my area are generally understanding and do not nitpick. Perhaps Castanza offended the inspector, despite his charming personality (kidding, kidding!)  ;D ;D

Also Mark, is this really the point? The real question here is about the overall quality and quantity of regulations. Not whether this one particular inspection item is logical. And I agree there are bad regulations out there that should be rationalized - and I also agree there is also too much systemic friction to make these changes intelligently. But I don't agree that "all regulations should be scrapped, because I know best" like the anarchists here will argue. Maybe if you lived completely self sufficiently and was not part of a society you can argue that. But we live in an intertwined society - and of course you have the freedom to move to Alaska or anywhere else to escape the enforcement such crushing regulation. Of course, a lot of self-proclaimed anarchists never seem to be taking this route...
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: MarkS on February 14, 2019, 12:18:24 PM
I really would love to understand how you can claim that an inspector after sheet rock is hung could determine if the drywall screws went through the romex when the sheet rock is covering the romex?

Mark, please I implore you to do your own critical thinking. I mean, aren't you the one complaining about the quality of posts?

It's the mark of an honest man to take his own advice.

Castanza already gave you the answer to your question, anyways.

And to be frank - the enforcement of these items should be logical - which is a human problem. Inspectors in my area are generally understanding and do not nitpick. Perhaps Castanza offended the inspector, despite his charming personality (kidding, kidding!)  ;D ;D

Also Mark, is this really the point? The real question here is about the overall quality and quantity of regulations. Not whether this one particular inspection item is logical. And I agree there are bad regulations out there that should be rationalized - and I also agree there is also too much systemic friction to make these changes intelligently. But I don't agree that "all regulations should be scrapped" like the anarchists here will argue.

Dr. Watson (aka LC)

I'm so disappointed by your obvious efforts to deflect the question.  I just hope that Sherlock Schwab doesn't get too upset with you!  I brought up the subject because an inspector looking at screw patterns in the sheet rock isn't looking for potential fire hazards from damaged romex. Your "example" is simply wrong.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: LC on February 14, 2019, 12:37:19 PM
Mark I'm making up an example to illustrate the point of regulations.

More realistically, a ton (no Mark, not an actual ton) of drywall could fall and hit you on the head.

But do you really want to talk about one particular part of the UBC? I thought the point of this thread was about increased regulation.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: rkbabang on February 14, 2019, 01:04:18 PM
I thought the point of this thread was about increased regulation.

It is?  The subject is about the crazy green deal, you know the one where no one has to work and we put an end to air travel.
Title: Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
Post by: LC on February 14, 2019, 01:29:26 PM
Sorry that is fair - I misspoke. The last conversation in this thread has been basically discussing the following:

Quote
the very fact that we see increased regulation, increased laws, increased social programs, should be evidence enough that the government thinks it knows what's best for you