Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
What allergy meds became 40 bucks that were previously 2? I take zyrtec d and it is regularly on sale for 20 bucks. Claritin, allegra, etc are all about the same price. The non d is much cheaper.Bottomfeeder Sports said:
How did she whine about the pay raise? She was asked about a bill to not block the COLA raise and she answered. That isn't corrupt or swampy at all.That statement, made over the thought of not getting a 4k raise on top of the top 1% salary she's getting, says a ton. Yes, we, as citizens, need to ensure she gets to 180k so the black money pools all of a sudden have no sway.You're right, you can't make stuff this ludicrous up. This coming from a person preaching (from one side of her mouth, anyway) about wages for the "working man."
Big picture - a brand new employee, hired in at 174k a year plus a gold plated pension plan, is already whining about a pay raise. She fits the millennial meme perfectly.
What? She replied to a tweet that was replying to a politico article. It wasnt directed at her. How is that just answering a question?
Not going to get into a semantics argument about whining. If somebody points out a bad call made by refs plenty of people call it whining. Plenty dont. It is obviously a subjective term.
Here's the twitter feed of the person she's retweeting and amplifying.Sand said:
Beats me. I wasn't defending their position (I mostly agree with them, but for different reasons that I've articulated already). I was just pointing out that retweeting and agreeing with Matt Stoller is definitely not the action of a "corrupt swamp creature," and thus your characterization of it was wrong.
It is if you are just using it to get yourself more money and trying to make your adoring fans think it was for other reasons.
She is a (self-proclaimed) socialist and yet is promoting a raise to her already healthy salary. Coming from most folks there I wouldn't bat an eye. From her the waft of hypocrisy is quite pronounced.
Yes, that's true. If you want to make a dubious, unsupportable claim about her motivations that seems to goes against all available evidence then you can invent any old narrative you want.
Do you have any evidence at all that she's doing this to increase her salary and not because of the larger principle of the thing? The idea of increasing Congressional pay (and the pay of high-level civil servants whose salaries may be tied to it) in order to increase the talent pool is a longstanding policy of many progressives, albeit a low-priority one. And we're talking about a woman who could probably make 8 figures tomorrow if she decided to leave the House. I think it's fair to assume she's not really in this for the mobey.
I think we are all being hypocrites. All of us here would give ourselves a raise if we could.
Yeah she does, assuming you're talking about a book or media deal or something. The House ethics rules prohibit those things. There used to be a loophole for book deals but they closed it after Newt Gingrich signed a $4 million book deal in the mid-90s and everyone freaked out and he had to cancel it.
I am not. I am talking about the advantageous position a member of our government is in to conduct business. I know there are probably rules against such things, but it isn't too difficult to mask it enough to get away with it and cash in substantially.
Sorry, I just don't understand what you're talking about.
Oh she's already caught on on how to line her own pockets and turn a 170k gig into millions.
Pay me or I’ll turn corrupt.That statement, made over the thought of not getting a 4k raise on top of the top 1% salary she's getting, says a ton. Yes, we, as citizens, need to ensure she gets to 180k so the black money pools all of a sudden have no sway.
Big picture - a brand new employee, hired in at 174k a year plus a gold plated pension plan, is already whining about a pay raise. She fits the millennial meme perfectly.
I get you are trying to make a point, but you know exactly what I am talking about.
Being able to trade on insider political knowledge is like having a money tree in your backyard.
No, but she is the one who has setup her public persona and she can and should be graded on that. This argument from her appears to be self-serving and doesn't reflect well.
Two words: Hunter Biden.
I honestly don't. Sorry. Can you give me an example of a legal, extremely lucrative activity that you think AOC could engage in by virtue of her status as a Representative?
It only appears self-serving to those who are jaded and who have a negative opinion of her, likely a product of the conservative media hate machine documented over the last 148 pages of this thread. Otherwise it is entirely consistent with her public service-oriented, anti-corruption, anti-"swamp" principles, as evidenced by the fact that many who have similar principles have been pushing for a pay raise for members since she was dancing on rooftops in college.
Three words: Purple monkey dishwasher.
Obviously I don't like her politics much, but if you look back in this thread I've been quite complimentary to her capabilities and some things she's done. I haven't heaped a hate fest on her, for sure.
Thought calling people trolls on here was forbidden? Didn't you get the memo?
Maybe it is. It’s not a term I use often. I probably haven’t been paying attention.
Hmmmmm.....
It's not though. Her political views are not at odds with wanting a cost of living pay raise. In fact, I'd say they are quite aligned. She isn't a communist. She's a democratic socialist. If she said her salary should be taxed less, then you would have a point.
Yeah she wants her COLA raise and she'll tax everyone else's COLA raises right back away from them.
Maybe try posting higher-quality content as opposed to stuff that looks indistinguishable from trolling.
I like AOC and maybe it is just me but what happened to good ole fashioned "Democrats"?
It's not the one-time raise she and others are fighting for. They are fighting the broader simplistic notion that we shouldn't give raises to Congress because they're our favorite punching bag and they already make enough to be comfortable. It's been ten years since the last one, and if we don't move the needle on this it could be another 20 or more before it becomes palatable. And of course if there's significant inflation at any point it will decrease their "real" pay in an economic environment where a pay raise for Congress is a complete non-option. At some point it does become a corruption/incentivization issue.
No, most of them aren’t. And it’s a terrible assumption that you and so many others make; it’s a big reason why a schmuck like Trump was allowed to be elected.Ramblin Wreck said:
I don’t hope to convince you but I really do believe that you’re being way too cynical, and there’s no reason for you to feel this way.
Then why do they need raises? Why not just arrest the corrupt ones or pass laws making it easier to do so?
If you’re looking at me to defend AOC’s argument, look elsewhere. I don’t agree with her logic. I’m fine with raises, even much bigger raises, so long as you show me evidence that they’re needed. I don’t think it’s much of an issue to get excited about one way or the other.
So you don't believe money in politics is an issue? These guys never make policies to serve themselves?
