Republicans Are Extremely Fearful of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[danielpalos]

The only person that is clueless is daniel, the proof that the guy can’t even get a House Rep to even take on his clueless cause and he is in California. Never has the Constitution every mentioned allowing lazy people to sit at home and become supported by the taxpaying citizens of this country and that is why this is not and never will be a scheme as stupid and clueless as what daniel has purposed.

Nothing in the Constitution even comes close to his errant interpretation on the subject. However he is good at being vague and repeating himself with nonsense that he can’t back up.

He reminds me of Dustin Hoffman in Rainman.

Don't worry; I am on the federal left. I have no provision for excuses. The Cause is being advanced.

Seems to me you are full of excuses and short on details and nothing is going to happen because the lazy are too lazy to work for money.

You keep missing the point with your special pleading in a vacuum. Capitalism cannot employ Everyone because it is not that efficient. There must be structural unemployment to create potentially new products at potentially lower prices.

Capitalism is about voluntary transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade. Requiring a work ethic is socialism.

It has been doing great until the last few years when people are just wanting money without actually having to work for it, then trying to claim that sitting and doing nothing is beneficial for society.

You are right, I don't buy into your idea, mainly because your idea rewards the lazy and takes away from the hard working Americans. Your idea of the unemployed creating new products would be fine as long as they can payback their debt to the American taxpayer at that time.

You don't understand Capitalism. Capitalism is about Voluntary transactions. Employment is at the will of either party. It is not about using Capitalism to "punish". It is about promoting the general welfare by merely using Capitalism for All of its worth in modern times.

The point is, right wingers; that not all capital opportunities can always be taken advantage of at any given time. Some people may be better off taking classes or vocational training while on unemployment. Reducing commuter traffic could also be a plus.

 

[danielpalos]

The only person that is clueless is daniel, the proof that the guy can’t even get a House Rep to even take on his clueless cause and he is in California. Never has the Constitution every mentioned allowing lazy people to sit at home and become supported by the taxpaying citizens of this country and that is why this is not and never will be a scheme as stupid and clueless as what daniel has purposed.

Nothing in the Constitution even comes close to his errant interpretation on the subject. However he is good at being vague and repeating himself with nonsense that he can’t back up.

He reminds me of Dustin Hoffman in Rainman.

Don't worry; I am on the federal left. I have no provision for excuses. The Cause is being advanced.

Seems to me you are full of excuses and short on details and nothing is going to happen because the lazy are too lazy to work for money.

You keep missing the point with your special pleading in a vacuum. Capitalism cannot employ Everyone because it is not that efficient. There must be structural unemployment to create potentially new products at potentially lower prices.

Capitalism is about voluntary transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade. Requiring a work ethic is socialism.

If you're not working and thus not generating an income, what do you have that benefits the other guy? Have you tried paying for your pot with pocket lint?

And you clearly have no concept of what words mean.

it is about equal protection of the law. the law is employment at the will of either party. are the Poor, not Worth it under our form of Capitalism?

 

[danielpalos]

The only person that is clueless is daniel, the proof that the guy can’t even get a House Rep to even take on his clueless cause and he is in California. Never has the Constitution every mentioned allowing lazy people to sit at home and become supported by the taxpaying citizens of this country and that is why this is not and never will be a scheme as stupid and clueless as what daniel has purposed.

Nothing in the Constitution even comes close to his errant interpretation on the subject. However he is good at being vague and repeating himself with nonsense that he can’t back up.

He reminds me of Dustin Hoffman in Rainman.

Don't worry; I am on the federal left. I have no provision for excuses. The Cause is being advanced.

Seems to me you are full of excuses and short on details and nothing is going to happen because the lazy are too lazy to work for money.

You keep missing the point with your special pleading in a vacuum. Capitalism cannot employ Everyone because it is not that efficient. There must be structural unemployment to create potentially new products at potentially lower prices.

Capitalism is about voluntary transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade. Requiring a work ethic is socialism.

If you're not working and thus not generating an income, what do you have that benefits the other guy? Have you tried paying for your pot with pocket lint?

And you clearly have no concept of what words mean.

He feels that just spending handouts makes him important to the economy.

sure; Capital must circulate not labor. Simply circulating capital is what engenders the liquidity necessary to promote a positive multiplier effect.

 

[danielpalos]

promote the general Welfare. it does not say, promote the general warfare.

Once again you still can’t back up your point. Promote the general welfare does not mean provide for.

So let’s move on, admit you don’t have a clue, if you have nothing else. What else do you got that I can so easily shoot down?

lol. nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

There is no authority to promote the general warfare or the common defense.

Actually liberals don’t take the Constitution seriously, which is why you can’t show us where it’s the role of the Federal Government to provide for those who choose not to provide for themselves through welfare. The Constitution DOES clearly state the role and responsibilities of the Federal Government, which includes funding for the common defense (military). It goes on to say, as be shown through the X Amendment, those responsibilities not delegated to the Federal Government become the responsibility of the respected states ... after that it becomes the responsibility of the people.

It’s in clear black and white for those who are literate with the ability and common sense to at least read it. At least ONE of us has the ability to back up our point, it’s just not you.

There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine. Our welfare clause is General, not common.

There are clear guidelines to the roles and responsibility of the Federal Government, the State, and the people under the Constitution. You provided (1) no evidence through Constitutional Amendment (2) nor Constitutional Clause staying the contrary. I am the only one who has provided specific sections found under the United States Constitution that CLEARLY backs what I’ve been saying.

The fact you can’t provide one article, not one, in the Constitution that supports the notion that “provision of welfare is the responsibility of the Federal Government”,... which is not surprising at all to say the least.

Show us how “knowledgeable” you THINK you are, bu posting actual Constitutional evidence that supports your view, instead of wasting my time with your “unsupported” opinions. I follow supported evidence, not your gibberish.

Providing for the general welfare is a general power delegated to our federal Congress.

 

[danielpalos]

Why do the working people have to pay for people that decide that they should not work? They are a burden to the state and to the taxpayer and provide no benefit to society.

So far there has been no attempt by daniel to provide what the lazy person can positively give to society, all he has concentrated is on the drain to society they cause.

because, dear; it is more cost effective than means tested welfare.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Still waiting for you to tell us.

promote the general Welfare. it does not say, promote the general warfare.

I understand what it said, I am waiting for to show us where in the Constitution, not the preamble where it specifically states that people that are lazy should be supported by hard working taxpayers. Also, if this was the intent of the forefathers was to pay the lazy for not working, why didn’t they create a law during the first meeting of Congress?

Promoting the general welfare means coming up with solutions to simple poverty and not excuses.

Providing welfare was not established until 1935 under President Roosevelt, it is not quoted as being the desire of our Founders when they used the language “promote the general welfare”..

If that’s what you believe, provide some evidence of it.

Both terms Promote and Provide are used in reference to the general welfare.

Actually no. That particular section of the preamble reads: “ provide for the common defense, (comma) .... promote the general welfare, (comma). Now let’s look at the sentence “structure”. That particular wording pertains to two different subject matters, each one separated through the use of a comma.

Provide for the common defense
Promote the general welfare

“Provide and promote the general welfare” is what, I believe, you HOPE to find.

So it would appear that you failed in English class, as well as your knowledge of the United States Constitution. What’s next?

 

[danielpalos]

promote the general Welfare. it does not say, promote the general warfare.

I understand what it said, I am waiting for to show us where in the Constitution, not the preamble where it specifically states that people that are lazy should be supported by hard working taxpayers. Also, if this was the intent of the forefathers was to pay the lazy for not working, why didn’t they create a law during the first meeting of Congress?

Promoting the general welfare means coming up with solutions to simple poverty and not excuses.

Providing welfare was not established until 1935 under President Roosevelt, it is not quoted as being the desire of our Founders when they used the language “promote the general welfare”..

If that’s what you believe, provide some evidence of it.

Both terms Promote and Provide are used in reference to the general welfare.

Actually no. That particular section of the preamble reads: “ provide for the common defense, (comma) .... promote the general welfare, (comma). Now let’s look at the sentence “structure”. That particular wording pertains to two different subject matters, each one separated through the use of a comma.

Provide for the common defense
Promote the general welfare

“Provide and promote the general welfare” is what, I believe, you HOPE to find.

So it would appear that you failed in English class, as well as your knowledge of the United States Constitution. What’s next?

too bad for you, the preamble is our mission statement. the delegated powers are in Article 1, Section 8.

 

[Papageorgio]

The only person that is clueless is daniel, the proof that the guy can’t even get a House Rep to even take on his clueless cause and he is in California. Never has the Constitution every mentioned allowing lazy people to sit at home and become supported by the taxpaying citizens of this country and that is why this is not and never will be a scheme as stupid and clueless as what daniel has purposed.

Nothing in the Constitution even comes close to his errant interpretation on the subject. However he is good at being vague and repeating himself with nonsense that he can’t back up.

He reminds me of Dustin Hoffman in Rainman.

Don't worry; I am on the federal left. I have no provision for excuses. The Cause is being advanced.

Seems to me you are full of excuses and short on details and nothing is going to happen because the lazy are too lazy to work for money.

You keep missing the point with your special pleading in a vacuum. Capitalism cannot employ Everyone because it is not that efficient. There must be structural unemployment to create potentially new products at potentially lower prices.

Capitalism is about voluntary transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade. Requiring a work ethic is socialism.

It has been doing great until the last few years when people are just wanting money without actually having to work for it, then trying to claim that sitting and doing nothing is beneficial for society.

You are right, I don't buy into your idea, mainly because your idea rewards the lazy and takes away from the hard working Americans. Your idea of the unemployed creating new products would be fine as long as they can payback their debt to the American taxpayer at that time.

You don't understand Capitalism. Capitalism is about Voluntary transactions. Employment is at the will of either party. It is not about using Capitalism to "punish". It is about promoting the general welfare by merely using Capitalism for All of its worth in modern times.

The point is, right wingers; that not all capital opportunities can always be taken advantage of at any given time. Some people may be better off taking classes or vocational training while on unemployment. Reducing commuter traffic could also be a plus.

You are clear as mud on what you are saying. I already said that we need safety nets for individuals that find themselves out of work or that maybe getting welfare and trying to improve their lot in life. So, you are not communicating your message which sounds like everyone should be entitled to $14 forever, whether they work or not.

 

[Papageorgio]

The only person that is clueless is daniel, the proof that the guy can’t even get a House Rep to even take on his clueless cause and he is in California. Never has the Constitution every mentioned allowing lazy people to sit at home and become supported by the taxpaying citizens of this country and that is why this is not and never will be a scheme as stupid and clueless as what daniel has purposed.

Nothing in the Constitution even comes close to his errant interpretation on the subject. However he is good at being vague and repeating himself with nonsense that he can’t back up.

He reminds me of Dustin Hoffman in Rainman.

Don't worry; I am on the federal left. I have no provision for excuses. The Cause is being advanced.

Seems to me you are full of excuses and short on details and nothing is going to happen because the lazy are too lazy to work for money.

You keep missing the point with your special pleading in a vacuum. Capitalism cannot employ Everyone because it is not that efficient. There must be structural unemployment to create potentially new products at potentially lower prices.

Capitalism is about voluntary transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade. Requiring a work ethic is socialism.

If you're not working and thus not generating an income, what do you have that benefits the other guy? Have you tried paying for your pot with pocket lint?

And you clearly have no concept of what words mean.

it is about equal protection of the law. the law is employment at the will of either party. are the Poor, not Worth it under our form of Capitalism?

Employment is not a law, it is an agreement of two parties.

 

[Papageorgio]

Why do the working people have to pay for people that decide that they should not work? They are a burden to the state and to the taxpayer and provide no benefit to society.

So far there has been no attempt by daniel to provide what the lazy person can positively give to society, all he has concentrated is on the drain to society they cause.

because, dear; it is more cost effective than means tested welfare.

Let's see your proof.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Don't worry; I am on the federal left. I have no provision for excuses. The Cause is being advanced.

Seems to me you are full of excuses and short on details and nothing is going to happen because the lazy are too lazy to work for money.

You keep missing the point with your special pleading in a vacuum. Capitalism cannot employ Everyone because it is not that efficient. There must be structural unemployment to create potentially new products at potentially lower prices.

Capitalism is about voluntary transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade. Requiring a work ethic is socialism.

If you're not working and thus not generating an income, what do you have that benefits the other guy? Have you tried paying for your pot with pocket lint?

And you clearly have no concept of what words mean.

He feels that just spending handouts makes him important to the economy.

sure; Capital must circulate not labor. Simply circulating capital is what engenders the liquidity necessary to promote a positive multiplier effect.

Still.....Not.....Important

 

[McRocket]

I despise Trump as POTUS and I want him out today.

But I am fearful of Ocasio-Cortez - even though I am neither Dem nor Rep.

Why?

Because - besides seeming like a decent person (which is good) - she has some EXTREME ideas about progressive governance.

And that kind of extremism is exactly something Trump could use to make himself out to be 'the one who stops America from becoming socialistic'.

Her desires for guaranteed jobs for everyone and free school/university for everyone just wreaks of socialism (plus would be ridiculously expensive) and I think will backfire against the Democrats at the polls in 2020.

And the number one goal of the Dems/Indies in 2020 should be to get Trump out of office. Worry about party platform ideals in 2024.

 

[danielpalos]

Don't worry; I am on the federal left. I have no provision for excuses. The Cause is being advanced.

Seems to me you are full of excuses and short on details and nothing is going to happen because the lazy are too lazy to work for money.

You keep missing the point with your special pleading in a vacuum. Capitalism cannot employ Everyone because it is not that efficient. There must be structural unemployment to create potentially new products at potentially lower prices.

Capitalism is about voluntary transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade. Requiring a work ethic is socialism.

It has been doing great until the last few years when people are just wanting money without actually having to work for it, then trying to claim that sitting and doing nothing is beneficial for society.

You are right, I don't buy into your idea, mainly because your idea rewards the lazy and takes away from the hard working Americans. Your idea of the unemployed creating new products would be fine as long as they can payback their debt to the American taxpayer at that time.

You don't understand Capitalism. Capitalism is about Voluntary transactions. Employment is at the will of either party. It is not about using Capitalism to "punish". It is about promoting the general welfare by merely using Capitalism for All of its worth in modern times.

The point is, right wingers; that not all capital opportunities can always be taken advantage of at any given time. Some people may be better off taking classes or vocational training while on unemployment. Reducing commuter traffic could also be a plus.

You are clear as mud on what you are saying. I already said that we need safety nets for individuals that find themselves out of work or that maybe getting welfare and trying to improve their lot in life. So, you are not communicating your message which sounds like everyone should be entitled to $14 forever, whether they work or not.

they could make more if they get a job. i am advocating for unemployment compensation at one dollar an hour equivalent less, than the minimum wage.

 

[danielpalos]

Don't worry; I am on the federal left. I have no provision for excuses. The Cause is being advanced.

Seems to me you are full of excuses and short on details and nothing is going to happen because the lazy are too lazy to work for money.

You keep missing the point with your special pleading in a vacuum. Capitalism cannot employ Everyone because it is not that efficient. There must be structural unemployment to create potentially new products at potentially lower prices.

Capitalism is about voluntary transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade. Requiring a work ethic is socialism.

If you're not working and thus not generating an income, what do you have that benefits the other guy? Have you tried paying for your pot with pocket lint?

And you clearly have no concept of what words mean.

it is about equal protection of the law. the law is employment at the will of either party. are the Poor, not Worth it under our form of Capitalism?

Employment is not a law, it is an agreement of two parties.

Employment relationships are governed by State laws.

 

[danielpalos]

Why do the working people have to pay for people that decide that they should not work? They are a burden to the state and to the taxpayer and provide no benefit to society.

So far there has been no attempt by daniel to provide what the lazy person can positively give to society, all he has concentrated is on the drain to society they cause.

because, dear; it is more cost effective than means tested welfare.

Let's see your proof.

it should be a self-evident truth. means testing is simply more expensive than merely compensating someone for simply being unemployed.

 

[danielpalos]

Seems to me you are full of excuses and short on details and nothing is going to happen because the lazy are too lazy to work for money.

You keep missing the point with your special pleading in a vacuum. Capitalism cannot employ Everyone because it is not that efficient. There must be structural unemployment to create potentially new products at potentially lower prices.

Capitalism is about voluntary transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade. Requiring a work ethic is socialism.

If you're not working and thus not generating an income, what do you have that benefits the other guy? Have you tried paying for your pot with pocket lint?

And you clearly have no concept of what words mean.

He feels that just spending handouts makes him important to the economy.

sure; Capital must circulate not labor. Simply circulating capital is what engenders the liquidity necessary to promote a positive multiplier effect.

Still.....Not.....Important

economics is not important to the right wing?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You keep missing the point with your special pleading in a vacuum. Capitalism cannot employ Everyone because it is not that efficient. There must be structural unemployment to create potentially new products at potentially lower prices.

Capitalism is about voluntary transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade. Requiring a work ethic is socialism.

If you're not working and thus not generating an income, what do you have that benefits the other guy? Have you tried paying for your pot with pocket lint?

And you clearly have no concept of what words mean.

He feels that just spending handouts makes him important to the economy.

sure; Capital must circulate not labor. Simply circulating capital is what engenders the liquidity necessary to promote a positive multiplier effect.

Still.....Not.....Important

economics is not important to the right wing?

Mocking your misunderstanding of economics is important to me.

 

[danielpalos]

If you're not working and thus not generating an income, what do you have that benefits the other guy? Have you tried paying for your pot with pocket lint?

And you clearly have no concept of what words mean.

He feels that just spending handouts makes him important to the economy.

sure; Capital must circulate not labor. Simply circulating capital is what engenders the liquidity necessary to promote a positive multiplier effect.

Still.....Not.....Important

economics is not important to the right wing?

Mocking your misunderstanding of economics is important to me.

you have no understanding of economics. right wing fantasy will do for the right wing.

 

[Papageorgio]

Seems to me you are full of excuses and short on details and nothing is going to happen because the lazy are too lazy to work for money.

You keep missing the point with your special pleading in a vacuum. Capitalism cannot employ Everyone because it is not that efficient. There must be structural unemployment to create potentially new products at potentially lower prices.

Capitalism is about voluntary transactions that result in mutually beneficial trade. Requiring a work ethic is socialism.

If you're not working and thus not generating an income, what do you have that benefits the other guy? Have you tried paying for your pot with pocket lint?

And you clearly have no concept of what words mean.

it is about equal protection of the law. the law is employment at the will of either party. are the Poor, not Worth it under our form of Capitalism?

Employment is not a law, it is an agreement of two parties.

Employment relationships are governed by State laws.

Then prove there is no equal protection.

 

[Papageorgio]

Why do the working people have to pay for people that decide that they should not work? They are a burden to the state and to the taxpayer and provide no benefit to society.

So far there has been no attempt by daniel to provide what the lazy person can positively give to society, all he has concentrated is on the drain to society they cause.

because, dear; it is more cost effective than means tested welfare.

Let's see your proof.

it should be a self-evident truth. means testing is simply more expensive than merely compensating someone for simply being unemployed.

Again, I want to see proof of your claim, do you have it or not? I also asked what the natural rate unemployment was under capitalism and have yet seen an answer to that either.

Do you have proof to back up your claims or not?