Republicans Are Extremely Fearful of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[hadit]

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.

Face it, you have no idea what your proposal will cost. Just admit that you like the way it sounds.

 

[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.

So what is the actual cost?

Nearly 102 million working-age Americans jobless

times the unemployment compensation amount.

a few trillion.

however, that money will be spent here creating demand and paying taxes on that circulating capital.

 

[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.

So what is the actual cost?

Nearly 102 million working-age Americans jobless

times the unemployment compensation amount.

Okay, since you refuse to do any actual math yourself, let's take $15/hr. That comes out to $31,200 per year. That times 102 million is more than $3 trillion/yr.

That is most of the federal budget. How are you going to pay for this truly massive new entitlement?

Now, I applaud you actually trying for a change, so I'll point out a few weaknesses in your presentation. First, you gave me a link to an article written in 2014. The job situation is quite different now, because we replaced the democrat with a pro jobs Republican. Second, you're trying to say this number, 102 million, is the natural rate of unemployment. Do you have any clue that you're saying the NATURAL rate is literally 30% of the entire US population, including those who cannot work?

In all seriousness, what you linked to demonstrates again that you really don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The only think I fear about her is that she'll stop talking.

That would be a problem for the right.

 

[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.

So what is the actual cost?

Nearly 102 million working-age Americans jobless

times the unemployment compensation amount.

Okay, since you refuse to do any actual math yourself, let's take $15/hr. That comes out to $31,200 per year. That times 102 million is more than $3 trillion/yr.

That is most of the federal budget. How are you going to pay for this truly massive new entitlement?

Now, I applaud you actually trying for a change, so I'll point out a few weaknesses in your presentation. First, you gave me a link to an article written in 2014. The job situation is quite different now, because we replaced the democrat with a pro jobs Republican. Second, you're trying to say this number, 102 million, is the natural rate of unemployment. Do you have any clue that you're saying the NATURAL rate is literally 30% of the entire US population, including those who cannot work?

In all seriousness, what you linked to demonstrates again that you really don't know what you're talking about.

we really just need to get it started. all of that spending will be creating demand and that will require labor.

how much growth do we want in our command economy.

 

[hadit]

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?

Nearly 102 million working-age Americans jobless

times the unemployment compensation amount.

Okay, since you refuse to do any actual math yourself, let's take $15/hr. That comes out to $31,200 per year. That times 102 million is more than $3 trillion/yr.

That is most of the federal budget. How are you going to pay for this truly massive new entitlement?

Now, I applaud you actually trying for a change, so I'll point out a few weaknesses in your presentation. First, you gave me a link to an article written in 2014. The job situation is quite different now, because we replaced the democrat with a pro jobs Republican. Second, you're trying to say this number, 102 million, is the natural rate of unemployment. Do you have any clue that you're saying the NATURAL rate is literally 30% of the entire US population, including those who cannot work?

In all seriousness, what you linked to demonstrates again that you really don't know what you're talking about.

we really just need to get it started. all of that spending will be creating demand and that will require labor.

how much growth do we want in our command economy.

Basically, your prescription is Obama's stimulus on mega steroids, made permanent. We haven't paid off the borrowing we did for the stimulus yet and that was a one time expense less than a third what you want to spend every year. I'm sorry, but your idea is just too expensive and cannot work.

 

[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.

So what is the actual cost?

Nearly 102 million working-age Americans jobless

times the unemployment compensation amount.

Okay, since you refuse to do any actual math yourself, let's take $15/hr. That comes out to $31,200 per year. That times 102 million is more than $3 trillion/yr.

That is most of the federal budget. How are you going to pay for this truly massive new entitlement?

Now, I applaud you actually trying for a change, so I'll point out a few weaknesses in your presentation. First, you gave me a link to an article written in 2014. The job situation is quite different now, because we replaced the democrat with a pro jobs Republican. Second, you're trying to say this number, 102 million, is the natural rate of unemployment. Do you have any clue that you're saying the NATURAL rate is literally 30% of the entire US population, including those who cannot work?

In all seriousness, what you linked to demonstrates again that you really don't know what you're talking about.

we really just need to get it started. all of that spending will be creating demand and that will require labor.

how much growth do we want in our command economy.

Basically, your prescription is Obama's stimulus on mega steroids, made permanent. We haven't paid off the borrowing we did for the stimulus yet and that was a one time expense less than a third what you want to spend every year. I'm sorry, but your idea is just too expensive and cannot work.

with all of that new tax revenue and economic growth we will be getting?

 

[Papageorgio]

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

I think she is going to have to make deals but rookies don’t have the influence nor the understanding, she has turned off establishment Democrats. We will see if she has the skills to make deals.

 

[Papageorgio]

So what is the actual cost?

Nearly 102 million working-age Americans jobless

times the unemployment compensation amount.

Okay, since you refuse to do any actual math yourself, let's take $15/hr. That comes out to $31,200 per year. That times 102 million is more than $3 trillion/yr.

That is most of the federal budget. How are you going to pay for this truly massive new entitlement?

Now, I applaud you actually trying for a change, so I'll point out a few weaknesses in your presentation. First, you gave me a link to an article written in 2014. The job situation is quite different now, because we replaced the democrat with a pro jobs Republican. Second, you're trying to say this number, 102 million, is the natural rate of unemployment. Do you have any clue that you're saying the NATURAL rate is literally 30% of the entire US population, including those who cannot work?

In all seriousness, what you linked to demonstrates again that you really don't know what you're talking about.

we really just need to get it started. all of that spending will be creating demand and that will require labor.

how much growth do we want in our command economy.

Basically, your prescription is Obama's stimulus on mega steroids, made permanent. We haven't paid off the borrowing we did for the stimulus yet and that was a one time expense less than a third what you want to spend every year. I'm sorry, but your idea is just too expensive and cannot work.

with all of that new tax revenue and economic growth we will be getting?

The current budget for welfare is $462 billion a year and you are wanting over 3 trillion a year. The current federal revenue from taxes is 3.4 trillion. You are essentially wanting to double the federal taxes. The. You need to add the states taxes that will need to go up to pay their side of the programs. So, I’m not seeing how growing a program to 7 times it’s original size is going to save Americans money, just sounds like big government gettin a lot bigger.
Sounds like hard working Americans are going to get screwed over because we know the rich don’t pay taxes they pass it on to the working class.

 

[hadit]

So what is the actual cost?

Nearly 102 million working-age Americans jobless

times the unemployment compensation amount.

Okay, since you refuse to do any actual math yourself, let's take $15/hr. That comes out to $31,200 per year. That times 102 million is more than $3 trillion/yr.

That is most of the federal budget. How are you going to pay for this truly massive new entitlement?

Now, I applaud you actually trying for a change, so I'll point out a few weaknesses in your presentation. First, you gave me a link to an article written in 2014. The job situation is quite different now, because we replaced the democrat with a pro jobs Republican. Second, you're trying to say this number, 102 million, is the natural rate of unemployment. Do you have any clue that you're saying the NATURAL rate is literally 30% of the entire US population, including those who cannot work?

In all seriousness, what you linked to demonstrates again that you really don't know what you're talking about.

we really just need to get it started. all of that spending will be creating demand and that will require labor.

how much growth do we want in our command economy.

Basically, your prescription is Obama's stimulus on mega steroids, made permanent. We haven't paid off the borrowing we did for the stimulus yet and that was a one time expense less than a third what you want to spend every year. I'm sorry, but your idea is just too expensive and cannot work.

with all of that new tax revenue and economic growth we will be getting?

New tax revenue? Think this through. How much new income tax revenue is going to be generated by a hundred million people making 30 grand a year? You're going to spend trillions to get back a few billion, if you're lucky. And as for economic growth, you're going to see millions who are currently working for $15/hr or less simply quit working. That's not going to increase economic activity.

No, the bottom line is, you have a fantasy that you can have the taxpayers take care of you your entire life and you won't have to do anything to earn it. It just won't work. Now, can you finally stop talking about this fantasy as if it will solve all the economic issues we face?

 

[danielpalos]

Nearly 102 million working-age Americans jobless

times the unemployment compensation amount.

Okay, since you refuse to do any actual math yourself, let's take $15/hr. That comes out to $31,200 per year. That times 102 million is more than $3 trillion/yr.

That is most of the federal budget. How are you going to pay for this truly massive new entitlement?

Now, I applaud you actually trying for a change, so I'll point out a few weaknesses in your presentation. First, you gave me a link to an article written in 2014. The job situation is quite different now, because we replaced the democrat with a pro jobs Republican. Second, you're trying to say this number, 102 million, is the natural rate of unemployment. Do you have any clue that you're saying the NATURAL rate is literally 30% of the entire US population, including those who cannot work?

In all seriousness, what you linked to demonstrates again that you really don't know what you're talking about.

we really just need to get it started. all of that spending will be creating demand and that will require labor.

how much growth do we want in our command economy.

Basically, your prescription is Obama's stimulus on mega steroids, made permanent. We haven't paid off the borrowing we did for the stimulus yet and that was a one time expense less than a third what you want to spend every year. I'm sorry, but your idea is just too expensive and cannot work.

with all of that new tax revenue and economic growth we will be getting?

The current budget for welfare is $462 billion a year and you are wanting over 3 trillion a year. The current federal revenue from taxes is 3.4 trillion. You are essentially wanting to double the federal taxes. The. You need to add the states taxes that will need to go up to pay their side of the programs. So, I’m not seeing how growing a program to 7 times it’s original size is going to save Americans money, just sounds like big government gettin a lot bigger.
Sounds like hard working Americans are going to get screwed over because we know the rich don’t pay taxes they pass it on to the working class.

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is more market friendly than any form of means testing. we could be saving money by increasing market share from means testing to the simpler program.

and, that money will be circulating in our local economies.

 

[danielpalos]

Nearly 102 million working-age Americans jobless

times the unemployment compensation amount.

Okay, since you refuse to do any actual math yourself, let's take $15/hr. That comes out to $31,200 per year. That times 102 million is more than $3 trillion/yr.

That is most of the federal budget. How are you going to pay for this truly massive new entitlement?

Now, I applaud you actually trying for a change, so I'll point out a few weaknesses in your presentation. First, you gave me a link to an article written in 2014. The job situation is quite different now, because we replaced the democrat with a pro jobs Republican. Second, you're trying to say this number, 102 million, is the natural rate of unemployment. Do you have any clue that you're saying the NATURAL rate is literally 30% of the entire US population, including those who cannot work?

In all seriousness, what you linked to demonstrates again that you really don't know what you're talking about.

we really just need to get it started. all of that spending will be creating demand and that will require labor.

how much growth do we want in our command economy.

Basically, your prescription is Obama's stimulus on mega steroids, made permanent. We haven't paid off the borrowing we did for the stimulus yet and that was a one time expense less than a third what you want to spend every year. I'm sorry, but your idea is just too expensive and cannot work.

with all of that new tax revenue and economic growth we will be getting?

New tax revenue? Think this through. How much new income tax revenue is going to be generated by a hundred million people making 30 grand a year? You're going to spend trillions to get back a few billion, if you're lucky. And as for economic growth, you're going to see millions who are currently working for $15/hr or less simply quit working. That's not going to increase economic activity.

No, the bottom line is, you have a fantasy that you can have the taxpayers take care of you your entire life and you won't have to do anything to earn it. It just won't work. Now, can you finally stop talking about this fantasy as if it will solve all the economic issues we face?

some States have sales taxes. merely circulating money generates revenue for some States. the point is, more people will have money to spend and conform to the laws of demand and supply.

 

[PredFan]

They are fearful because, finally, they have to contend with an unabashed liberal progressive that's fighting for the people. Moreover, she's a woman, so they won't be able to just come out her any type of way.

And the best part is, she know exactly how to counter their foolishness.

Yes Republicans, she's coming, and HELL'S coming with her!!!

Any other thoughts on why Republicans are left quaking in their boots over this. one. little. woman?

I love her! She shows the entire country what idiots left wing voters are. Keep her talking.

 

[hadit]

Okay, since you refuse to do any actual math yourself, let's take $15/hr. That comes out to $31,200 per year. That times 102 million is more than $3 trillion/yr.

That is most of the federal budget. How are you going to pay for this truly massive new entitlement?

Now, I applaud you actually trying for a change, so I'll point out a few weaknesses in your presentation. First, you gave me a link to an article written in 2014. The job situation is quite different now, because we replaced the democrat with a pro jobs Republican. Second, you're trying to say this number, 102 million, is the natural rate of unemployment. Do you have any clue that you're saying the NATURAL rate is literally 30% of the entire US population, including those who cannot work?

In all seriousness, what you linked to demonstrates again that you really don't know what you're talking about.

we really just need to get it started. all of that spending will be creating demand and that will require labor.

how much growth do we want in our command economy.

Basically, your prescription is Obama's stimulus on mega steroids, made permanent. We haven't paid off the borrowing we did for the stimulus yet and that was a one time expense less than a third what you want to spend every year. I'm sorry, but your idea is just too expensive and cannot work.

with all of that new tax revenue and economic growth we will be getting?

New tax revenue? Think this through. How much new income tax revenue is going to be generated by a hundred million people making 30 grand a year? You're going to spend trillions to get back a few billion, if you're lucky. And as for economic growth, you're going to see millions who are currently working for $15/hr or less simply quit working. That's not going to increase economic activity.

No, the bottom line is, you have a fantasy that you can have the taxpayers take care of you your entire life and you won't have to do anything to earn it. It just won't work. Now, can you finally stop talking about this fantasy as if it will solve all the economic issues we face?

some States have sales taxes. merely circulating money generates revenue for some States. the point is, more people will have money to spend and conform to the laws of demand and supply.

You are pretending that it will generate more than what you took out of the economy in the first place, but you have nothing more than your special pleading to back it up.

 

[danielpalos]

we really just need to get it started. all of that spending will be creating demand and that will require labor.

how much growth do we want in our command economy.

Basically, your prescription is Obama's stimulus on mega steroids, made permanent. We haven't paid off the borrowing we did for the stimulus yet and that was a one time expense less than a third what you want to spend every year. I'm sorry, but your idea is just too expensive and cannot work.

with all of that new tax revenue and economic growth we will be getting?

New tax revenue? Think this through. How much new income tax revenue is going to be generated by a hundred million people making 30 grand a year? You're going to spend trillions to get back a few billion, if you're lucky. And as for economic growth, you're going to see millions who are currently working for $15/hr or less simply quit working. That's not going to increase economic activity.

No, the bottom line is, you have a fantasy that you can have the taxpayers take care of you your entire life and you won't have to do anything to earn it. It just won't work. Now, can you finally stop talking about this fantasy as if it will solve all the economic issues we face?

some States have sales taxes. merely circulating money generates revenue for some States. the point is, more people will have money to spend and conform to the laws of demand and supply.

You are pretending that it will generate more than what you took out of the economy in the first place, but you have nothing more than your special pleading to back it up.

the analogy is an oil pump. the lubrication of liquidity is beneficial to an economic engine.

 

[PredFan]

 

[Papageorgio]

Okay, since you refuse to do any actual math yourself, let's take $15/hr. That comes out to $31,200 per year. That times 102 million is more than $3 trillion/yr.

That is most of the federal budget. How are you going to pay for this truly massive new entitlement?

Now, I applaud you actually trying for a change, so I'll point out a few weaknesses in your presentation. First, you gave me a link to an article written in 2014. The job situation is quite different now, because we replaced the democrat with a pro jobs Republican. Second, you're trying to say this number, 102 million, is the natural rate of unemployment. Do you have any clue that you're saying the NATURAL rate is literally 30% of the entire US population, including those who cannot work?

In all seriousness, what you linked to demonstrates again that you really don't know what you're talking about.

we really just need to get it started. all of that spending will be creating demand and that will require labor.

how much growth do we want in our command economy.

Basically, your prescription is Obama's stimulus on mega steroids, made permanent. We haven't paid off the borrowing we did for the stimulus yet and that was a one time expense less than a third what you want to spend every year. I'm sorry, but your idea is just too expensive and cannot work.

with all of that new tax revenue and economic growth we will be getting?

The current budget for welfare is $462 billion a year and you are wanting over 3 trillion a year. The current federal revenue from taxes is 3.4 trillion. You are essentially wanting to double the federal taxes. The. You need to add the states taxes that will need to go up to pay their side of the programs. So, I’m not seeing how growing a program to 7 times it’s original size is going to save Americans money, just sounds like big government gettin a lot bigger.
Sounds like hard working Americans are going to get screwed over because we know the rich don’t pay taxes they pass it on to the working class.

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is more market friendly than any form of means testing. we could be saving money by increasing market share from means testing to the simpler program.

and, that money will be circulating in our local economies.

Local spending will not produce the revenue to cover the seven times the cost, so revenue needs to come from somewhere else, that would be the working class Americans that fund the rich and poor, how much more of a burden do you think they can take? T

 

[Papageorgio]

Okay, since you refuse to do any actual math yourself, let's take $15/hr. That comes out to $31,200 per year. That times 102 million is more than $3 trillion/yr.

That is most of the federal budget. How are you going to pay for this truly massive new entitlement?

Now, I applaud you actually trying for a change, so I'll point out a few weaknesses in your presentation. First, you gave me a link to an article written in 2014. The job situation is quite different now, because we replaced the democrat with a pro jobs Republican. Second, you're trying to say this number, 102 million, is the natural rate of unemployment. Do you have any clue that you're saying the NATURAL rate is literally 30% of the entire US population, including those who cannot work?

In all seriousness, what you linked to demonstrates again that you really don't know what you're talking about.

we really just need to get it started. all of that spending will be creating demand and that will require labor.

how much growth do we want in our command economy.

Basically, your prescription is Obama's stimulus on mega steroids, made permanent. We haven't paid off the borrowing we did for the stimulus yet and that was a one time expense less than a third what you want to spend every year. I'm sorry, but your idea is just too expensive and cannot work.

with all of that new tax revenue and economic growth we will be getting?

New tax revenue? Think this through. How much new income tax revenue is going to be generated by a hundred million people making 30 grand a year? You're going to spend trillions to get back a few billion, if you're lucky. And as for economic growth, you're going to see millions who are currently working for $15/hr or less simply quit working. That's not going to increase economic activity.

No, the bottom line is, you have a fantasy that you can have the taxpayers take care of you your entire life and you won't have to do anything to earn it. It just won't work. Now, can you finally stop talking about this fantasy as if it will solve all the economic issues we face?

some States have sales taxes. merely circulating money generates revenue for some States. the point is, more people will have money to spend and conform to the laws of demand and supply.

And the working class will have burden, which in turn gives them less to spend.

 

[Papageorgio]

Basically, your prescription is Obama's stimulus on mega steroids, made permanent. We haven't paid off the borrowing we did for the stimulus yet and that was a one time expense less than a third what you want to spend every year. I'm sorry, but your idea is just too expensive and cannot work.

with all of that new tax revenue and economic growth we will be getting?

New tax revenue? Think this through. How much new income tax revenue is going to be generated by a hundred million people making 30 grand a year? You're going to spend trillions to get back a few billion, if you're lucky. And as for economic growth, you're going to see millions who are currently working for $15/hr or less simply quit working. That's not going to increase economic activity.

No, the bottom line is, you have a fantasy that you can have the taxpayers take care of you your entire life and you won't have to do anything to earn it. It just won't work. Now, can you finally stop talking about this fantasy as if it will solve all the economic issues we face?

some States have sales taxes. merely circulating money generates revenue for some States. the point is, more people will have money to spend and conform to the laws of demand and supply.

You are pretending that it will generate more than what you took out of the economy in the first place, but you have nothing more than your special pleading to back it up.

the analogy is an oil pump. the lubrication of liquidity is beneficial to an economic engine.

You continue to pump from the well, it will dry up, then you have nothing but a dried up well and no more oil.

 

[danielpalos]

we really just need to get it started. all of that spending will be creating demand and that will require labor.

how much growth do we want in our command economy.

Basically, your prescription is Obama's stimulus on mega steroids, made permanent. We haven't paid off the borrowing we did for the stimulus yet and that was a one time expense less than a third what you want to spend every year. I'm sorry, but your idea is just too expensive and cannot work.

with all of that new tax revenue and economic growth we will be getting?

The current budget for welfare is $462 billion a year and you are wanting over 3 trillion a year. The current federal revenue from taxes is 3.4 trillion. You are essentially wanting to double the federal taxes. The. You need to add the states taxes that will need to go up to pay their side of the programs. So, I’m not seeing how growing a program to 7 times it’s original size is going to save Americans money, just sounds like big government gettin a lot bigger.
Sounds like hard working Americans are going to get screwed over because we know the rich don’t pay taxes they pass it on to the working class.

compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is more market friendly than any form of means testing. we could be saving money by increasing market share from means testing to the simpler program.

and, that money will be circulating in our local economies.

Local spending will not produce the revenue to cover the seven times the cost, so revenue needs to come from somewhere else, that would be the working class Americans that fund the rich and poor, how much more of a burden do you think they can take? T

only right wing fantasy doesn't have to obey the laws of demand and supply. a positive multiplier effect and automatic stabilization of our local economies, is what we can expect.