Discussion in 'Politicants' started by Unimane, Feb 6, 2019.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal, backed by Kamala Harris and others.
That's it for Harris. Affairs that besmirch the sanctity of "marriage", in this case, are most definitely disqualifying.
The "unwilling to work" bit is a torpedo to the whole thing. Who the hell would put that language in their plan?
Oh yeah, a 29 year old. She is the shiny, loud new object in the House and is getting far more press than she deserves.
It shouldn't. It's quite easy to take that part out and leave in what's a pretty good idea.
It’d be interesting to see what would happen if it would pass.
It’s a bunch of buzz words.
I like the sounds of all that stuff on their own but the hang up is in the logistics of actually doing them.
Especially in a political system that is a monopoly and full of special interest
She's a socialist. Not in a "everyone left of nancy pelosi is a socialist" way but like, actually a socialist. It's a pretty common modern socialist position that basic human needs(food, shelter, medical care, etc) are not tied to your ability or willingness to produce profit for others
Is "high-quality healthcare" and "high-quality education" supposed to be guaranteed for those "unwilling to work" even under socialism?
I have serious questions and reservations about the "unwilling to work" part. Seems, uh, destructive to civilization.
That has to be a typo. It's not in the official resolution, but in the overview. No one would say "unwilling to work" as being included.
"From each according to their ability"
Not being willing is not the same as not being able. So, no.
How will the system be able to determine the difference and once determined handle it.
Fair question and criticism. But we still have to go back and figure what the [uck fay] they were talking about with people being "unwilling" work essentially getting a free ride.
Yeah, half the country would be "unwilling" to work, if the option were given to them. I, again, have to think it's a typo. It's not in the official resolution and I've never heard it pushed by anyone. I've never heard anyone push this, at all, period. It would be stupid beyond belief.
Don't we already have SSI & SSDI who make such determinations?
But it isn't a typo. It may be a mistake, but it isn't a typo. It isn't one character away from something else that makes sense in context.
The lazy would be rewarded even further. The New American Dream, baby.
Sell your soul for $790 a month.
Either one, but the point is that this couldn't have been what was intended. There's no way.
Have you read the rest? There is quite a bit of fantasy land stuff so I am sure it was intentional. My guess it is essentially the thought of everyone getting a minimal cost of living guaranteed to them even if they are unwilling to work. Where I think they messed up was not clarifying that some of the other "guarantees" would not extend to those unwilling to work. At least that is me giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Separate names with a comma.