Republicans Are Extremely Fearful of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[rightwinger]

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez advocates programs that help the people

No wonder conservatives hate her so much

I’m a conservative and I think she is a okay with me. I’m not sure Pelosi cares much for her.

I like her

She is willing to tell Pelosi to go fuk herself

Looks like Democrats hate her, Democrats seem extremely fearful of her.

Can you imagine a young Freshman Congresswoman can yield such influence?

 

[hadit]

Like I said, go with what makes you feel good, doesn’t matter to me. Your concept has been proven wrong, so it a mute point.

anybody can talk. it must take morals to actually argue.

You can argue that cats will float up to the ceiling if you rub them on your head, but it doesn't require morals. It's just dumb. Arguing your points after they've been repeatedly disproven is also dumb and doesn't take morals.

you only have gossip not valid rebuttals. anybody can talk. men can argue.

solving simple poverty at the rock bottom cost of less than the minimum wage, is the concept.

How much will it cost?

This is the approximate labor force participation rate, 62.9%. That should mean, approximately 37.1% could need compensation for simply being unemployed.

It seems like a lot; but, it will result in a more efficient economy that is more stable and will need to grow to meet that new demand.

Okay, you're getting closer. Just multiply that 37.1% times the total number of American workers to arrive at the number of people who would immediately receive welfare (we will not call it unemployment compensation because it's not), then multiply that by $15/hr times 40 hours/wk times 52 weeks/yr to arrive at the total cost per year. Then increase that by the number of people who will quit their jobs because they can get almost as much for doing nothing. When you get all that done, quantify the efficiency gains in the economy and tell us how long it will take to pay for itself.

 

[danielpalos]

anybody can talk. it must take morals to actually argue.

You can argue that cats will float up to the ceiling if you rub them on your head, but it doesn't require morals. It's just dumb. Arguing your points after they've been repeatedly disproven is also dumb and doesn't take morals.

you only have gossip not valid rebuttals. anybody can talk. men can argue.

solving simple poverty at the rock bottom cost of less than the minimum wage, is the concept.

How much will it cost?

This is the approximate labor force participation rate, 62.9%. That should mean, approximately 37.1% could need compensation for simply being unemployed.

It seems like a lot; but, it will result in a more efficient economy that is more stable and will need to grow to meet that new demand.

Okay, you're getting closer. Just multiply that 37.1% times the total number of American workers to arrive at the number of people who would immediately receive welfare (we will not call it unemployment compensation because it's not), then multiply that by $15/hr times 40 hours/wk times 52 weeks/yr to arrive at the total cost per year. Then increase that by the number of people who will quit their jobs because they can get almost as much for doing nothing. When you get all that done, quantify the efficiency gains in the economy and tell us how long it will take to pay for itself.

some of those currently on means tested welfare may switch to simpler, unemployment compensation for simply be being unemployed. we could save money by reducing an incentive to commit more expensive forms of welfare fraud.

and, we also have to consider all of the demand, all of those new market participants will be creating. it should require more labor.

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage should encourage more people to work.

 

[Thinker101]

You can argue that cats will float up to the ceiling if you rub them on your head, but it doesn't require morals. It's just dumb. Arguing your points after they've been repeatedly disproven is also dumb and doesn't take morals.

you only have gossip not valid rebuttals. anybody can talk. men can argue.

solving simple poverty at the rock bottom cost of less than the minimum wage, is the concept.

How much will it cost?

This is the approximate labor force participation rate, 62.9%. That should mean, approximately 37.1% could need compensation for simply being unemployed.

It seems like a lot; but, it will result in a more efficient economy that is more stable and will need to grow to meet that new demand.

Okay, you're getting closer. Just multiply that 37.1% times the total number of American workers to arrive at the number of people who would immediately receive welfare (we will not call it unemployment compensation because it's not), then multiply that by $15/hr times 40 hours/wk times 52 weeks/yr to arrive at the total cost per year. Then increase that by the number of people who will quit their jobs because they can get almost as much for doing nothing. When you get all that done, quantify the efficiency gains in the economy and tell us how long it will take to pay for itself.

some of those currently on means tested welfare may switch to simpler, unemployment compensation for simply be being unemployed. we could save money by reducing an incentive to commit more expensive forms of welfare fraud.

Sure, switch out welfare fraud for unemployment fraud, quite the suggestion...dumbass.

 

[danielpalos]

you only have gossip not valid rebuttals. anybody can talk. men can argue.

solving simple poverty at the rock bottom cost of less than the minimum wage, is the concept.

How much will it cost?

This is the approximate labor force participation rate, 62.9%. That should mean, approximately 37.1% could need compensation for simply being unemployed.

It seems like a lot; but, it will result in a more efficient economy that is more stable and will need to grow to meet that new demand.

Okay, you're getting closer. Just multiply that 37.1% times the total number of American workers to arrive at the number of people who would immediately receive welfare (we will not call it unemployment compensation because it's not), then multiply that by $15/hr times 40 hours/wk times 52 weeks/yr to arrive at the total cost per year. Then increase that by the number of people who will quit their jobs because they can get almost as much for doing nothing. When you get all that done, quantify the efficiency gains in the economy and tell us how long it will take to pay for itself.

some of those currently on means tested welfare may switch to simpler, unemployment compensation for simply be being unemployed. we could save money by reducing an incentive to commit more expensive forms of welfare fraud.

Sure, switch out welfare fraud for unemployment fraud, quite the suggestion...dumbass.

in what way; by actually working and paying taxes on it?

 

[Thinker101]

How much will it cost?

This is the approximate labor force participation rate, 62.9%. That should mean, approximately 37.1% could need compensation for simply being unemployed.

It seems like a lot; but, it will result in a more efficient economy that is more stable and will need to grow to meet that new demand.

Okay, you're getting closer. Just multiply that 37.1% times the total number of American workers to arrive at the number of people who would immediately receive welfare (we will not call it unemployment compensation because it's not), then multiply that by $15/hr times 40 hours/wk times 52 weeks/yr to arrive at the total cost per year. Then increase that by the number of people who will quit their jobs because they can get almost as much for doing nothing. When you get all that done, quantify the efficiency gains in the economy and tell us how long it will take to pay for itself.

some of those currently on means tested welfare may switch to simpler, unemployment compensation for simply be being unemployed. we could save money by reducing an incentive to commit more expensive forms of welfare fraud.

Sure, switch out welfare fraud for unemployment fraud, quite the suggestion...dumbass.

in what way; by actually working and paying taxes on it?

Considering how much time and effort you put into "unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed", if you spent half that effort into actually being employed, you would be in a much better place.

 

[danielpalos]

This is the approximate labor force participation rate, 62.9%. That should mean, approximately 37.1% could need compensation for simply being unemployed.

It seems like a lot; but, it will result in a more efficient economy that is more stable and will need to grow to meet that new demand.

Okay, you're getting closer. Just multiply that 37.1% times the total number of American workers to arrive at the number of people who would immediately receive welfare (we will not call it unemployment compensation because it's not), then multiply that by $15/hr times 40 hours/wk times 52 weeks/yr to arrive at the total cost per year. Then increase that by the number of people who will quit their jobs because they can get almost as much for doing nothing. When you get all that done, quantify the efficiency gains in the economy and tell us how long it will take to pay for itself.

some of those currently on means tested welfare may switch to simpler, unemployment compensation for simply be being unemployed. we could save money by reducing an incentive to commit more expensive forms of welfare fraud.

Sure, switch out welfare fraud for unemployment fraud, quite the suggestion...dumbass.

in what way; by actually working and paying taxes on it?

Considering how much time and effort you put into "unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed", if you spent half that effort into actually being employed, you would be in a much better place.

our welfare clause is general not common. there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine. Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the "problem".

 

[Thinker101]

Okay, you're getting closer. Just multiply that 37.1% times the total number of American workers to arrive at the number of people who would immediately receive welfare (we will not call it unemployment compensation because it's not), then multiply that by $15/hr times 40 hours/wk times 52 weeks/yr to arrive at the total cost per year. Then increase that by the number of people who will quit their jobs because they can get almost as much for doing nothing. When you get all that done, quantify the efficiency gains in the economy and tell us how long it will take to pay for itself.

some of those currently on means tested welfare may switch to simpler, unemployment compensation for simply be being unemployed. we could save money by reducing an incentive to commit more expensive forms of welfare fraud.

Sure, switch out welfare fraud for unemployment fraud, quite the suggestion...dumbass.

in what way; by actually working and paying taxes on it?

Considering how much time and effort you put into "unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed", if you spent half that effort into actually being employed, you would be in a much better place.

our welfare clause is general not common. there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine. Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the "problem".

No, you being like a fricken broken record is the problem.

 

[danielpalos]

some of those currently on means tested welfare may switch to simpler, unemployment compensation for simply be being unemployed. we could save money by reducing an incentive to commit more expensive forms of welfare fraud.

Sure, switch out welfare fraud for unemployment fraud, quite the suggestion...dumbass.

in what way; by actually working and paying taxes on it?

Considering how much time and effort you put into "unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed", if you spent half that effort into actually being employed, you would be in a much better place.

our welfare clause is general not common. there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine. Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the "problem".

No, you being like a fricken broken record is the problem.

lol. just you all having nothing but red herrings for your learning how to fish, "work ethic". who's fault is that y'all have only, inferior arguments and fallacy.

 

[hadit]

You can argue that cats will float up to the ceiling if you rub them on your head, but it doesn't require morals. It's just dumb. Arguing your points after they've been repeatedly disproven is also dumb and doesn't take morals.

you only have gossip not valid rebuttals. anybody can talk. men can argue.

solving simple poverty at the rock bottom cost of less than the minimum wage, is the concept.

How much will it cost?

This is the approximate labor force participation rate, 62.9%. That should mean, approximately 37.1% could need compensation for simply being unemployed.

It seems like a lot; but, it will result in a more efficient economy that is more stable and will need to grow to meet that new demand.

Okay, you're getting closer. Just multiply that 37.1% times the total number of American workers to arrive at the number of people who would immediately receive welfare (we will not call it unemployment compensation because it's not), then multiply that by $15/hr times 40 hours/wk times 52 weeks/yr to arrive at the total cost per year. Then increase that by the number of people who will quit their jobs because they can get almost as much for doing nothing. When you get all that done, quantify the efficiency gains in the economy and tell us how long it will take to pay for itself.

some of those currently on means tested welfare may switch to simpler, unemployment compensation for simply be being unemployed. we could save money by reducing an incentive to commit more expensive forms of welfare fraud.

and, we also have to consider all of the demand, all of those new market participants will be creating. it should require more labor.

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage should encourage more people to work.

Not if they can get fourteen for simply existing.

 

[hadit]

Okay, you're getting closer. Just multiply that 37.1% times the total number of American workers to arrive at the number of people who would immediately receive welfare (we will not call it unemployment compensation because it's not), then multiply that by $15/hr times 40 hours/wk times 52 weeks/yr to arrive at the total cost per year. Then increase that by the number of people who will quit their jobs because they can get almost as much for doing nothing. When you get all that done, quantify the efficiency gains in the economy and tell us how long it will take to pay for itself.

some of those currently on means tested welfare may switch to simpler, unemployment compensation for simply be being unemployed. we could save money by reducing an incentive to commit more expensive forms of welfare fraud.

Sure, switch out welfare fraud for unemployment fraud, quite the suggestion...dumbass.

in what way; by actually working and paying taxes on it?

Considering how much time and effort you put into "unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed", if you spent half that effort into actually being employed, you would be in a much better place.

our welfare clause is general not common. there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine. Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the "problem".

What's the rate?

 

[rightwinger]

you only have gossip not valid rebuttals. anybody can talk. men can argue.

solving simple poverty at the rock bottom cost of less than the minimum wage, is the concept.

How much will it cost?

This is the approximate labor force participation rate, 62.9%. That should mean, approximately 37.1% could need compensation for simply being unemployed.

It seems like a lot; but, it will result in a more efficient economy that is more stable and will need to grow to meet that new demand.

Okay, you're getting closer. Just multiply that 37.1% times the total number of American workers to arrive at the number of people who would immediately receive welfare (we will not call it unemployment compensation because it's not), then multiply that by $15/hr times 40 hours/wk times 52 weeks/yr to arrive at the total cost per year. Then increase that by the number of people who will quit their jobs because they can get almost as much for doing nothing. When you get all that done, quantify the efficiency gains in the economy and tell us how long it will take to pay for itself.

some of those currently on means tested welfare may switch to simpler, unemployment compensation for simply be being unemployed. we could save money by reducing an incentive to commit more expensive forms of welfare fraud.

Sure, switch out welfare fraud for unemployment fraud, quite the suggestion...dumbass.

Petty fraud

If you want to go after real fraud, go after tax fraud for Trump and his buddies.


Only problem is that those involved in welfare or unemployment fraud are on their own. Those involved in billionaire tax fraud have an army of lawyers, accountants and friendly Congressmen to defend them

 

[Nova78]

She is dumber than a sack of door bells ,her proposals are nothing more than pyramid schemes, and to think her base pay is $175,000 a year. She will go out of favor like a fart in the wind.

 

[Thinker101]

How much will it cost?

This is the approximate labor force participation rate, 62.9%. That should mean, approximately 37.1% could need compensation for simply being unemployed.

It seems like a lot; but, it will result in a more efficient economy that is more stable and will need to grow to meet that new demand.

Okay, you're getting closer. Just multiply that 37.1% times the total number of American workers to arrive at the number of people who would immediately receive welfare (we will not call it unemployment compensation because it's not), then multiply that by $15/hr times 40 hours/wk times 52 weeks/yr to arrive at the total cost per year. Then increase that by the number of people who will quit their jobs because they can get almost as much for doing nothing. When you get all that done, quantify the efficiency gains in the economy and tell us how long it will take to pay for itself.

some of those currently on means tested welfare may switch to simpler, unemployment compensation for simply be being unemployed. we could save money by reducing an incentive to commit more expensive forms of welfare fraud.

Sure, switch out welfare fraud for unemployment fraud, quite the suggestion...dumbass.

Petty fraud

If you want to go after real fraud, go after tax fraud for Trump and his buddies.


Only problem is that those involved in welfare or unemployment fraud are on their own. Those involved in billionaire tax fraud have an army of lawyers, accountants and friendly Congressmen to defend them

I see.....
41 Obama White House aides owe the IRS $831,000 in back taxes -- and they're not alone

Democrats' Biggest Donor Has Refused to Pay $7 Billion in U.S. Taxes He Owes (WHOA!) - The Political Insider

 

[danielpalos]

you only have gossip not valid rebuttals. anybody can talk. men can argue.

solving simple poverty at the rock bottom cost of less than the minimum wage, is the concept.

How much will it cost?

This is the approximate labor force participation rate, 62.9%. That should mean, approximately 37.1% could need compensation for simply being unemployed.

It seems like a lot; but, it will result in a more efficient economy that is more stable and will need to grow to meet that new demand.

Okay, you're getting closer. Just multiply that 37.1% times the total number of American workers to arrive at the number of people who would immediately receive welfare (we will not call it unemployment compensation because it's not), then multiply that by $15/hr times 40 hours/wk times 52 weeks/yr to arrive at the total cost per year. Then increase that by the number of people who will quit their jobs because they can get almost as much for doing nothing. When you get all that done, quantify the efficiency gains in the economy and tell us how long it will take to pay for itself.

some of those currently on means tested welfare may switch to simpler, unemployment compensation for simply be being unemployed. we could save money by reducing an incentive to commit more expensive forms of welfare fraud.

and, we also have to consider all of the demand, all of those new market participants will be creating. it should require more labor.

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage should encourage more people to work.

Not if they can get fourteen for simply existing.

some will, some won't. simply existing, Costs under Capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

some of those currently on means tested welfare may switch to simpler, unemployment compensation for simply be being unemployed. we could save money by reducing an incentive to commit more expensive forms of welfare fraud.

Sure, switch out welfare fraud for unemployment fraud, quite the suggestion...dumbass.

in what way; by actually working and paying taxes on it?

Considering how much time and effort you put into "unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed", if you spent half that effort into actually being employed, you would be in a much better place.

our welfare clause is general not common. there is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine. Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is the "problem".

What's the rate?

how many people are unemployed?

 

[Papageorgio]

Like I said, go with what makes you feel good, doesn’t matter to me. Your concept has been proven wrong, so it a mute point.

anybody can talk. it must take morals to actually argue.

You can argue that cats will float up to the ceiling if you rub them on your head, but it doesn't require morals. It's just dumb. Arguing your points after they've been repeatedly disproven is also dumb and doesn't take morals.

you only have gossip not valid rebuttals. anybody can talk. men can argue.

solving simple poverty at the rock bottom cost of less than the minimum wage, is the concept.

How much will it cost?

This is the approximate labor force participation rate, 62.9%. That should mean, approximately 37.1% could need compensation for simply being unemployed.

It seems like a lot; but, it will result in a more efficient economy that is more stable and will need to grow to meet that new demand.

So what is the actual cost?

 

[Papageorgio]

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez advocates programs that help the people

No wonder conservatives hate her so much

I’m a conservative and I think she is a okay with me. I’m not sure Pelosi cares much for her.

I like her

She is willing to tell Pelosi to go fuk herself

Looks like Democrats hate her, Democrats seem extremely fearful of her.

Can you imagine a young Freshman Congresswoman can yield such influence?

I don’t see it as influence, I see it as alienating herself from both parties.

 

[rightwinger]

She is dumber than a sack of door bells ,her proposals are nothing more than pyramid schemes, and to think her base pay is $175,000 a year. She will go out of favor like a fart in the wind.

Doesn’t seem that way

She is getting stronger

 

[rightwinger]

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez advocates programs that help the people

No wonder conservatives hate her so much

I’m a conservative and I think she is a okay with me. I’m not sure Pelosi cares much for her.

I like her

She is willing to tell Pelosi to go fuk herself

Looks like Democrats hate her, Democrats seem extremely fearful of her.

Can you imagine a young Freshman Congresswoman can yield such influence?

I don’t see it as influence, I see it as alienating herself from both parties.

She has built a coalition
Large enough to block legislation