Occasi-Cortez Channeling the Rent's too damn high guy

[billsfan89]

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

This is a strawman.

 

I don't demand wealthy individuals, only those whom have achieved a degree financial success coupled with the wisdom granted by years of life experience.  Then from that pool, look to the ideas.

 

A person doesn't need to be rich to be self minimally self sufficient to the point of being able to afford someplace to live.

 

This is a baseline marker for competence, something I demand from the individuals who represent us.

 

 

 

A young person being able to afford 5-6k in expenses while having their ability to work be limited for 2 months isn't exactly easy for a lot of people under 30 to do. I agree with you if this is a matter of being able to scrounge together 500 dollars but it screams out of touch to think that its easy for everyone to have 5-6k to dump in a short period of time while having income be limited. I get that it is your personal preference and "competence" test but for me I think if you want more common people involved in government you are going to have some people who don't have 5-6k to spare on a big move. 50% of American workers make less than 30k a year, odds are a lot of those people fall under that category. So if your aim is to open up the government to less lawyers and affluent business people you are going to have to accept that this scenario could happen and it isn't a bad thing. 

Just now, LABillzFan said:

 

She's a complete dumbass who caught a wind at her back, but I'm not going to get on her case so much as I'm going to get on the case of the people who elected her.

 

But let's be honest, the left has never been interested in putting intelligent people in office. A bartender trying to play a role in managing the finances of 325 million people is only slightly less ridiculous than an old guy concerned that troop build up will cause Guam to tip over.

 

Again, intelligence has never been a requirement of the left. It's how Obama got elected.

 

The right has elected some pretty big morons. George W Bush and Trump (the past few years I actually think Trump back in the day was somewhat smart) aren't the sharpest tools in the shed. Sarah Palin is another momo that ended up on a presidential ticket. A lot of the Tea Party and fundamental right wing candidates are also scary low on the intelligence level. I am not saying this is exclusive to either party but painting it as a partisan issue isn't wise.

[TakeYouToTasker]

7 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

A young person being able to afford 5-6k in expenses while having their ability to work be limited for 2 months isn't exactly easy for a lot of people under 30 to do. I agree with you if this is a matter of being able to scrounge together 500 dollars but it screams out of touch to think that its easy for everyone to have 5-6k to dump in a short period of time while having income be limited. I get that it is your personal preference and "competence" test but for me I think if you want more common people involved in government you are going to have some people who don't have 5-6k to spare on a big move. 50% of American workers make less than 30k a year, odds are a lot of those people fall under that category. So if your aim is to open up the government to less lawyers and affluent business people you are going to have to accept that this scenario could happen and it isn't a bad thing. 

 

That word "affluent" again...

 

Stop making that strawman.

 

Not everyone should run for, or be elected to Congress.  Everyone who does should be able to demonstrate basic financial competence.

 

Someone who doesn't have 5-6k in personal savings, or have a plan to pay their rent does not have that level of competence.

 

I don't think individuals who are common should be Congresspersons.  I think individuals who are exceptional should be, and one of the areas they should necessarily be successful is in their personal finances, because they're going to be making multi-trillion dollar budgetary decisions.

 

The common person should participate in their government by voting, or if more interested, by running for local office.

 

 

14 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

The right has elected some pretty big morons. George W Bush and Trump (the past few years I actually think Trump back in the day was somewhat smart) aren't the sharpest tools in the shed. Sarah Palin is another momo that ended up on a presidential ticket. A lot of the Tea Party and fundamental right wing candidates are also scary low on the intelligence level. I am not saying this is exclusive to either party but painting it as a partisan issue isn't wise.

 

Pull up your unsubstantiated fiat declarations.  Your bias is showing.

[billsfan89]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

That word "affluent" again...

 

Stop making that strawman.

 

Not everyone should run for, or be elected to Congress.  Everyone who does should be able to demonstrate basic financial competence.

 

Someone who doesn't have 5-6k in personal savings, or have a plan to pay their rent does not have that level of competence.

 

I don't think individuals who are common should be Congresspersons.  I think individuals who are exceptional should be, and one of the areas they should necessarily be successful is in their personal finances, because they're going to be making multi-trillion dollar budgetary decisions.

 

The common person should participate in their government by voting, or if more interested, by running for local office.

 

 

 

50% of American workers make less than 30k a year. A lot of young people under 30 fall into that category. If you want to shut a lot of people out from Congress fine that's your personal opinion. I just think you are out of touch with the working class.

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

50% of American workers make less than 30k a year. A lot of young people under 30 fall into that category. If you want to shut a lot of people out from Congress fine that's your personal opinion. I just think you are out of touch with the working class.

 

You think I'm out of touch with the working class because I don't think people who don't have the requisite knowledge, ability, resourcefulness, or decision making ability to achieve a modicum of financial success should be making multi-trillion dollar meta decisions which guide us as a society?

 

That's an incredibly stupid argument.

[billsfan89]

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

You think I'm out of touch with the working class because I don't think people who don't have the requisite knowledge, ability, resourcefulness, or decision making ability to achieve a modicum of financial success should be making multi-trillion dollar meta decisions which guide us as a society?

 

That's an incredibly stupid argument.

 

I think you can be a young person or someone making under 30k a year and bring good ideas to the government. If you had more actual working people in the government it would actually function for those people better. If you want to shut out half of Americans from Congress because they don't meet that standard fine but its out of touch for how hard a lot of people have it.

3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

 

Pull up your unsubstantiated fiat declarations.  Your bias is showing.

 

Do you seriously think that there weren't religious fundamentalist morons who were elected from the tea party? Do you think Sarah Palin and George W Bush are smart people? There are so many former staff members who say Trump is a grade a moron who governs by watching Fox News (and his tweets aligning when Fox News puts out stories proves that) so I think there is plenty of evidence to support that.

 

There are plenty of quotes that I could pull up on moronic things that people like Michelle Backman and other "right wing" candidates have said. The poster I was replying to was saying how the left always elects morons but I was pointing out there were plenty of morons on the right. 

[DC Tom]

7 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

I think you can be a young person or someone making under 30k a year and bring good ideas to the government.

 

How young?  Younger than, say, 35?  30?  25?

[TakeYouToTasker]

10 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

I think you can be a young person or someone making under 30k a year and bring good ideas to the government. If you had more actual working people in the government it would actually function for those people better. If you want to shut out half of Americans from Congress because they don't meet that standard fine but its out of touch for how hard a lot of people have it.

 

You're conflating two completely disparate ideas.

 

The notion that some people have it hard (I have a very deep personal understanding of this.  I come from nothing, and am completely self-made.  It's something I've talked about on these boards before.); and who demonstrates the level of competence necessary to make the big decisions which guide us as a nation.

 

Explain how someone who hasn't shown the ability to save money, hasn't demonstrated financial literacy rising to the minimum standard of being able to shelter themselves, hasn't ever held a position of leadership in large organization, hasn't demonstrated complex problem solving skills, doesn't have the benefit of life experience, etc. deserves the opportunity to make decisions involving the worlds most complex issues, deserves to be charged with managing the treasure of an entire nation, and deserves to be part of the elite leadership group overseeing more than 300 million people.

 

You can't.

 

It's an unfathomably stupid argument to make.

 

30 somethings whom have achieved absolutely nothing in their own lives shouldn't be in Congress.  Full stop.

 

If you want to be entrusted with the wealth, laws, and culture of millions and their progeny get your own damn house in order first.

11 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

Do you seriously think that there weren't religious fundamentalist morons who were elected from the tea party? Do you think Sarah Palin and George W Bush are smart people? There are so many former staff members who say Trump is a grade a moron who governs by watching Fox News (and his tweets aligning when Fox News puts out stories proves that) so I think there is plenty of evidence to support that.

 

There are plenty of quotes that I could pull up on moronic things that people like Michelle Backman and other "right wing" candidates have said. The poster I was replying to was saying how the left always elects morons but I was pointing out there were plenty of morons on the right. 

 

You've made claims, source and them.

 

Demonstrate that Christians fundamentalists, Tea Partiers, George W. Bush, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and Donald Trump have low IQs.

 

You don't have evidence, you have confirmation bias.

Edited November 15, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[billsfan89]

6 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

You're conflating two completely disparate ideas.

 

The notion that some people have it hard (I have a very deep personal understanding of this.  I come from nothing, and am completely self-made.  It's something I've talked about on these boards before.); and who demonstrates the level of competence necessary to make the big decisions which guide us as a nation.

 

Explain how someone who hasn't shown the ability to save money, hasn't demonstrated financial literacy rising to the minimum standard of being able to shelter themselves, hasn't ever held a position of leadership in large organization, hasn't demonstrated complex problem solving skills, doesn't have the benefit of life experience, etc. deserves the opportunity to make decisions involving the worlds most complex issues, deserves to be charged with managing the treasure of an entire nation, and deserves to be part of the elite leadership group overseeing more than 300 million people.

 

You can't.

 

It's an unfathomably stupid argument to make.

 

30 somethings whom have achieved absolutely nothing in their own lives shouldn't be in Congress.  Full stop.

 

If you want to be entrusted with the wealth, laws, and culture of millions and their progeny get your own damn house in order first.

 

I understand your point that having 5-6k in savings isn't the hardest thing to do and that it isn't that high of a standard to have. But given how bad the economy has been for working people I don't think its unfathomable for a person to not having that kind of level of savings but Have good policy ideas. I think someone close to the struggles of working people has a perspective and an understanding of what is impacting those populations and could bring ideas to the government people not directly impacted might not.

 

No one elected to Congress is an expert on every issue. When you elect someone you trust that their perspective, you trust their judgement, and you trust their policy prescriptions that they have presented to you. I think that there are people who are struggling for various reasons that have those good qualities that one would want in a leader/rep.

 

I am not dogmatic about someone struggling not being able to bring good representation to their constituents. Just to be clear I am not saying everyone in Congress of the Senate should be poor or working class but rather I am not going to lock out or mock people who are struggling to come up with 5-6k to float themselves from bringing good ideas to the table. I get that you might see that as an automatic disqualifying factor as its not the highest bar to set. But to me I am not going to be nearly as dogmatic as I think you lock a lot of good people out by doing that. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

I understand your point that having 5-6k in savings isn't the hardest thing to do and that it isn't that high of a standard to have. But given how bad the economy has been for working people I don't think its unfathomable for a person to not having that kind of level of savings but Have good policy ideas. I think someone close to the struggles of working people has a perspective and an understanding of what is impacting those populations and could bring ideas to the government people not directly impacted might not.

 

No one elected to Congress is an expert on every issue. When you elect someone you trust that their perspective, you trust their judgement, and you trust their policy prescriptions that they have presented to you. I think that there are people who are struggling for various reasons that have those good qualities that one would want in a leader/rep.

 

I am not dogmatic about someone struggling not being able to bring good representation to their constituents. Just to be clear I am not saying everyone in Congress of the Senate should be poor or working class but rather I am not going to lock out or mock people who are struggling to come up with 5-6k to float themselves from bringing good ideas to the table. I get that you might see that as an automatic disqualifying factor as its not the highest bar to set. But to me I am not going to be nearly as dogmatic as I think you lock a lot of good people out by doing that. 

 

I'm not saying the should be locked out, I'm saying that they don't belong because they aren't qualified.

 

I know they aren't qualified because they have no success in their own personal lives, no financial acumen, no time in leadership, no decision making skills, no complex problem solving skills.

 

Demonstrate the ability to make good decisions for one person first.

 

Then talk about making decisions for the rest of us.

[Koko78]

How is the increase in wages and the first time ever that there were more jobs than seekers "bad" for the working class?

[billsfan89]

Just now, Koko78 said:

How is the increase in wages and the first time ever that there were more jobs than seekers "bad" for the working class?

 

Wage growth is barely keeping up with inflation, the economy for over 30 years has been hit by factors larger than tax and economic policy (Automation and Globalization the biggest culprits) so I don't blame lack of purchasing power wage growth on any recent administration. As far as the unemployment rate although it certainly has been trending lower for a long time under both Obama and Trump its not really reflective of the massive numbers of people who have stopped looking for work who are not counted in the total. I think Trump's tax cuts and deregulation have certainly juiced the economy but its not likely to have a long term impact in my opinion. 

 

The stock market will be juiced short term maybe for another 2 years or so but once corporate profits normalize and the sugar high fades there won't be nearly enough investment and value added to the economy to sustain longer term growth. Most of the tax cuts on the corporate side will go into stock buy backs which will mostly benefit the top income brackets who are already doing the best they have been since the 1920's. 83% of the tax cuts on the consumer side go to the top income earners who once again are sitting on record levels of income and capital.

 

In 2-3 years I fear that the sugar high of deregulation and tax cuts are going to fade and the US will have financed huge deficits for very little long term gain. Basically I think the Trump policy is nothing more than a stimulus for Wall Street and the top 2-3% of earners while longer term issues like Infrastructure are ignored.  

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

[Rob's House]

[billsfan89]

13 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

I'm not saying the should be locked out, I'm saying that they don't belong because they aren't qualified.

 

I know they aren't qualified because they have no success in their own personal lives, no financial acumen, no time in leadership, no decision making skills, no complex problem solving skills.

 

Demonstrate the ability to make good decisions for one person first.

 

Then talk about making decisions for the rest of us.

 

I don't think they are unqualified or at least not automatically unqualified. Money does not equal a qualification to have good judgement and a lack of money doesn't mean you have bad judgement. I kind of agree that I would put into question someone who doesn't have 5-6k to float themselves for 2 months but I am not going to immediately disqualify someone on that reason alone. I would look into that persons education, experience, circumstances, and political positions along with why they don't have that kind of money before I state that they are unqualified . In an economy where there are a lot of people struggling its not unreasonable to think smart and good people would not have a lot of money, it certainly is a reasonable possibility in my mind. 

 

I am not defended Alexandra OC because while I like some of what she stands for (Universal Healthcare, getting money out of politics, and ending our rampant military spending) I think she has a lot of bad or unrealistic ideas like a 15 dollar federal minimum wage and a Universal Basic Income. But my thinking that she is a bit in over her head is more so based off of how unrealistic or not fleshed out some of her ideas are and not that she isn't able to afford 5-6k right away.  

[TakeYouToTasker]

8 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

I don't think they are unqualified or at least not automatically unqualified. Money does not equal a qualification to have good judgement and a lack of money doesn't mean you have bad judgement. I kind of agree that I would put into question someone who doesn't have 5-6k to float themselves for 2 months but I am not going to immediately disqualify someone on that reason alone. I would look into that persons education, experience, circumstances, and political positions along with why they don't have that kind of money before I state that they are unqualified . In an economy where there are a lot of people struggling its not unreasonable to think smart and good people would not have a lot of money, it certainly is a reasonable possibility in my mind. 

 

I am not defended Alexandra OC because while I like some of what she stands for (Universal Healthcare, getting money out of politics, and ending our rampant military spending) I think she has a lot of bad or unrealistic ideas like a 15 dollar federal minimum wage and a Universal Basic Income. But my thinking that she is a bit in over her head is more so based off of how unrealistic or not fleshed out some of her ideas are and not that she isn't able to afford 5-6k right away.  

 

The level of competence, decision making ability, leadership skills, financial acumen, and complex problem solving skills required to make the largest and most important decisions humanity faces aren't possessed by individuals who can't manage to put away 5-6k or manage their own personal finances.  Full stop.

 

There are no barriers someone in the United States in the year 2018 faces which impede the sort of individual we want making these kind of decisions from achieving this minor to the point of being minimal level of success.  The types we want in charge pull themselves over those barriers and establish themselves, which is how they prove their competence.

Edited November 15, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[billsfan89]

8 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

The level of competence, decision making ability, leadership skills, financial acumen, and complex problem solving skills required to make the largest and most important decisions humanity faces aren't possessed by individuals who can't manage to put away 5-6k or manage their own personal finances.  Full stop.

 

There are no barriers someone in the United States in the year 2018 faces which impede the sort of individual we want making these kind of decisions from achieving this minor to the point of being minimal level of success.  The types we want in charge pull themselves over those barriers and establish themselves, which is how they prove their competence.

 

I think we are just at an impasse as I think that its not a direct disqualifer as you think once again its context that I look for whereas you are dogmatic and I think that's just not going to go anywhere. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

3 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

I think we are just at an impasse as I think that its not a direct disqualifer as you think once again its context that I look for whereas you are dogmatic and I think that's just not going to go anywhere. 

 

Which is fine.  You're free to have as many bad opinions as you'd like.

[Nanker]

[boyst]

11 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

The level of competence, decision making ability, leadership skills, financial acumen, and complex problem solving skills required to make the largest and most important decisions humanity faces aren't possessed by individuals who can't manage to put away 5-6k or manage their own personal finances.  Full stop.

 

There are no barriers someone in the United States in the year 2018 faces which impede the sort of individual we want making these kind of decisions from achieving this minor to the point of being minimal level of success.  The types we want in charge pull themselves over those barriers and establish themselves, which is how they prove their competence.

I never understand the desire by folks to take someone and prop them up or establish the other through support to reach beyond their ability.  Behind this woman there are dozens of people who have built her up far more intelligent than she is and far more capable but have no palatability and no optics to run.  That's what should be obvious to the most stupid people out there and the ones who lack intelligence as mentally insufficient out there like billsfan89.

 

How is it some 28 yr old derp got out there to lead the way in a huge town borrough over an entrenched Democrat to find her way to Washington when just a year ago she was living paycheck to paycheck because she had no ability to plan.

[Hedge]

 

1 hour ago, Boyst62 said:

I never understand the desire by folks to take someone and prop them up or establish the other through support to reach beyond their ability.  Behind this woman there are dozens of people who have built her up far more intelligent than she is and far more capable

 

Replace a few words and it sounds like the presidential election in 2008.

As a further reference, from Sarah Palin: "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities."

 

And a community organizer is worlds above a bartender.

[boyst]

1 hour ago, Hedge said:

 

 

Replace a few words and it sounds like the presidential election in 2008.

 

As a further reference, from Sarah Palin: "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities."

 

And a community organizer is worlds above a bartender.

 

i've long since forgotten but palin actually did some pretty successful things during her tenure in alaska.

 

still the most odd thing to have her chosen - derailing her career - to ride with mccain.

 

maybe @Deranged Rhino has some tinfoil hat ***** on this.