Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Thread


JohnnyU

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, stlrams said:

I recommend next time she uses her power for what’s good for her district. After all that’s who she represents.  

I think she and you may disagree with what is good for her district. It remains to be seen how good for areas tax deals like this ultimately are.

Edited by sho nuff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

Well it's cheaper than FoxConn at least, so I guess it's got that going for it ;)

 

That’s my point.  I have to research but a lot deals in my state Are around 100 k per job

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, stlrams said:

How are thousands of jobs not good for her district? 

Again many of those jobs won’t be gozing to people in her district and are using billions in tax incentives to create.  I don’t think it’s nearly as fit and dry as you are trying to make it...and I don’t suspect  either of us will convince the other.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stlrams said:

That’s your opinion.  Obviously many New York democrats disagree with you which is why they offered 3b while amazon invested 2.5b and 25,000 jobs.  It’s the narrow mindness of aoc that partially disrupted this deal.  I guess no one in her district needs a job that would average 75k per year...

Yes, that's my opinion.  And the opinion of a number of other people, but I expressed it solely as my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, stlrams said:

How are thousands of jobs not good for her district? 

How is the loss of affordable housing that would have taken place good for her district?

It's a balancing act.  On the whole, for Amazon to move there (without getting massive corporate welfare) I believe would be a good thing.

Getting $3.4 billion in corporate handouts, I understand people not supporting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, stlrams said:

How are thousands of jobs not good for her district? 

How many times are you going to keep repeating the same nonsense about the jobs? 

1.  Many of the jobs, especially the well-paying ones, wouldn't go to people in her district.

2. She and many others believe it would be bad for her district because those outsiders would drive up the cost of living to an unsustainable level for working class people while also using public resources that could be allocated elsewhere.

You might disagree with them on the cost/benefit. But ignoring these complex public policy arguments completely to bluntly (and wrongly) make the same point over and over again doesn't work. And doing it while arrogantly suggesting that she's the one who doesn't understand things is frankly kind of obnoxious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Again many of those jobs won’t be gozing to people in her district and are using billions in tax incentives to create.  I don’t think it’s nearly as fit and dry as you are trying to make it...and I don’t suspect  either of us will convince the other.

 

I agree that of the 25k jobs some will be transplants but they will reside and spend locally.  For argument sake let’s assume half or 12,500 jobs given to locals.  How could this not benefit her district?  The incentives coming from state and estimated to pay for itself...I don’t see any downside for her district..  please point out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

How many times are you going to keep repeating the same nonsense about the jobs? 

1.  Many of the jobs, especially the well-paying ones, wouldn't go to people in her district.

2. She and many others believe it would be bad for her district because those outsiders would drive up the cost of living to an unsustainable level for working class people while also using public resources that could be allocated elsewhere.

You might disagree with them on the cost/benefit. But ignoring these complex public policy arguments completely to bluntly (and wrongly) make the same point over and over again doesn't work. And doing it while arrogantly suggesting that she's the one who doesn't understand things is frankly kind of obnoxious.

Point 1 - how many of the 25k jobs go to locals in your opinion?

point 2 - please provide examples where this occurred so we have a basis.  Obviously del blasio, cuomo and 70% of New Yorkers disagree so your implying the vast majority don’t understand but aoc does.  Ok sure keep drinking koolaid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, stlrams said:

I agree that of the 25k jobs some will be transplants but they will reside and spend locally.  For argument sake let’s assume half or 12,500 jobs given to locals.  How could this not benefit her district?  The incentives coming from state and estimated to pay for itself...I don’t see any downside for her district..  please point out

Overcrowding, gentrification, loss of affordable housing, stress on an already stressed public transportation system, the working conditions Amazon is known for, loss of the space for other businesses that wouldn't be getting corporate welfare, all for an area that's already substantially lower than national unemployment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, stlrams said:

I agree that of the 25k jobs some will be transplants but they will reside and spend locally.  For argument sake let’s assume half or 12,500 jobs given to locals.  How could this not benefit her district?  The incentives coming from state and estimated to pay for itself...I don’t see any downside for her district..  please point out

First of all your assumption seems unfounded to say the least, and ignores the quality and salaries of the jobs that might be made available to her constituents.

Anyway, literally in the post above yours, and far from the first time it's been said:

Quote

2. She and many others believe it would be bad for her district because those outsiders would drive up the cost of living to an unsustainable level for working class people while also using public resources that could be allocated elsewhere.

Conservatives here often ask why they're so often called trolls.  This is why. You're asking a question that's been answered clearly and repeatedly, sometimes directly in response to your other posts.  How is that not trolling, at best?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, stlrams said:

Point 1 - how many of the 25k jobs go to locals in your opinion?

point 2 - please provide examples where this occurred so we have a basis.  Obviously del blasio, cuomo and 70% of New Yorkers disagree so your implying the vast majority don’t understand but aoc does.  Ok sure keep drinking koolaid

Point 1: I have no idea, that's why I'm not making ridiculous assumptions that form the basis for my position and then chastising others for not seeing things my way. I don't even have a position, I haven't looked closely enough and it's not my city anyway so my perspective would be limited.

Point 2: Are you seriously asking for examples of gentrification harming working class and/or minority communities? It's fairly well-documented, to put it mildly.  Take your pick. Also, deBlasio, Cuomo and 70% of New Yorkers  probably don't disagree with me. They likely just believe the benefits outweigh the costs. Which is totally fine and defensible. For all I know they're correct. What's not fine and is kind of obnoxious is pretending those costs don't exist at all while being smug and dismissive towards people who don't want to bear them.

Edited by TobiasFunke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to be clear, I don’t know if the Amazon deal would have been good. I suspect it would have, but there were reasonable arguments against and they’re worth considering. 

What depressed me about AOC was not her opposition but her rhetoric. As I wrote she strikes me as ignorant about capitalism and the creation of wealth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

First of all your assumption seems unfounded to say the least, and ignores the quality and salaries of the jobs that might be made available to her constituents.

Anyway, literally in the post above yours, and far from the first time it's been said:

Conservatives here often ask why they're so often called trolls.  This is why. You're asking a question that's been answered clearly and repeatedly, sometimes directly in response to your other posts.  How is that not trolling, at best?

So it’s trolling when I don’t agree with you?  Got it.  You’re right and I’m wrong...happy..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

Point 1: I have no idea, that's why I'm not making ridiculous assumptions that form the basis for my position and then chastising others for not seeing things my way.

Point 2: Are you seriously asking for examples of gentrification harming working class and/or minority communities? It's fairly well-documented, to put it mildly.  Take your pick. Also, deBlasio, Cuomo and 70% of New Yorkers  probably don't disagree with me. They likely just believe the benefits outweigh the costs. Which is totally fine and defensible. What's not fine and is kind of obnoxious is pretending those costs don't exist at all while being smug and dismissive towards people who don't want to bear them.

So on point 2 , 70% of people including high ranking democrats believe the benefits outweigh costs but aoc right?  No one including myself never said there were not other costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Just to be clear, I don’t know if the Amazon deal would have been good. I suspect it would have, but there were reasonable arguments against and they’re worth considering. 

What depressed me about AOC was not her opposition but her rhetoric. As I wrote she strikes me as ignorant about capitalism and the creation of wealth. 

Wouldn't a capitalist say that Amazon should build its own damn office instead of relying on public largesse? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Juxtatarot said:

Why not do both?

I'd probably be ok with that - I'll be honest, I'm not that well versed in the cow farts environmental impact - it could be that it's going to kill us all within 50 years and if so then my thoughts on red meat not being as bad for you as some think really wouldn't matter.  There's other sources of protein and vitamins that we could offset with so in general I'm on board if knowledgeable people tell me we need to do it for environmental reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TobiasFunke said:

Wouldn't a capitalist say that Amazon should build its own damn office instead of relying on public largesse? 

 Maybe a capitalist before 1932. Or an objectivist or libertarian. 

But not today. In modern times, public-private partnership is a way of life. And frankly it’s been good for us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, stlrams said:

So on point 2 , 70% of people including high ranking democrats believe the benefits outweigh costs but aoc right?  No one including myself never said there were not other costs.

Correct.  Probably because hey have different perspectives.  DeBlasio and Cuomo are looking out for the best interests of the city and the state, while AOC and other activists fighting the project are looking out for the best interests of the local community.  They might all be correctly weighing costs and benefits for their constituents. Or one side or the other could be wrong. This all makes perfect sense. I'm not sure why you find it interesting or convincing.

As for your last point, when you ask "how are thousands of jobs not good for her district?" and similar things you've said throughout this discussion you are clearly ignoring the costs entirely IMO.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

And capital grants.

Yes, you are correct. He had it in quotes and in reading elsewhere I thought it was very specifically tied as a reimbursement for payments to the city, but after reading the Post story and local NYC article they stated it is in fact an actual cash grant that is only tied to job metrics, not spending. My bad. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

 Maybe a capitalist before 1932. Or an objectivist or libertarian. 

But not today. In modern times, public-private partnership is a way of life. And frankly it’s been good for us. 

I addressed this in the other thread when you jokingly said we are becoming a progressive echo chamber - this is where we seem to part ways.  You are, IMHO, too onboard with capitalism being so good for us.  It was good in the past but we've reached a tipping point.  Unchecked capitalism is how we've gotten to the 1% problem.  It will only get worse from here.  AOC may be naive and needs seasoning and needs to be realistic but she's not wrong in a lot of cases.  In the same way we are headed toward an environmental disaster with climate change I feel we are headed toward an economic disaster with wealth inequality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

I'd probably be ok with that - I'll be honest, I'm not that well versed in the cow farts environmental impact - it could be that it's going to kill us all within 50 years and if so then my thoughts on red meat not being as bad for you as some think really wouldn't matter.  There's other sources of protein and vitamins that we could offset with so in general I'm on board if knowledgeable people tell me we need to do it for environmental reasons.

It's more than cow farts.  Here's a quick little article of how much worse meat production is:  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/meat-and-environment/

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Yes, you are correct. He had it in quotes and in reading elsewhere I thought it was very specifically tied as a reimbursement for payments to the city, but after reading the Post story and local NYC article they stated it is in fact an actual cash grant that is only tied to job metrics, not spending. My bad. 

It's pretty understandable to not see all of the provisions involved in $3.4 billion in corporate welfare right off the bat.  Realizing what all was being given is part of what made people turn against the deal in Queens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

I addressed this in the other thread when you jokingly said we are becoming a progressive echo chamber - this is where we seem to part ways.  You are, IMHO, too onboard with capitalism being so good for us.  It was good in the past but we've reached a tipping point.  Unchecked capitalism is how we've gotten to the 1% problem.  It will only get worse from here.  AOC may be naive and needs seasoning and needs to be realistic but she's not wrong in a lot of cases.  In the same way we are headed toward an environmental disaster with climate change I feel we are headed toward an economic disaster with wealth inequality. 

We still need to create wealth in order to share it. How do we do that? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

Wouldn't a capitalist say that Amazon should build its own damn office instead of relying on public largesse? 

That is kind of an interesting question. Ignore increased profits from cities begging you to come or get in bed with the government as a result. 

Another question don't most cities end up regretting these deals? PP in wisco isnt too happy already with foxcon*. 

 

 

 

*Second n left off on purpose. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, stlrams said:

So on point 2 , 70% of people including high ranking democrats believe the benefits outweigh costs but aoc right?  No one including myself never said there were not other costs.

It's much like the last election and the electoral college isn't it? It is possible to have leaders like AOC and Sen Gianaris in those local areas to Long Island City to disagree with Albany - just like it's possible Alabama doesn't like something the whole country agrees on at 70%.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mr Anonymous said:

AOC's brand of extreme Socialism is just as wrong as unchecked Capitalism. The answer as usual lies somewhere in between. Unfortunately the popularity of AOC is yet another instance where this country overreacts and swings too far the opposite direction.

If you think the American Progressive brand of Socialism is the "extreme" -- man, have I got some stuff to show you...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

It's more than cow farts.  Here's a quick little article of how much worse meat production is:  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/meat-and-environment/

I'll read the rest as I want to educate myself but the 2nd paragraph jumps out to me:

Quote

Livestock are typically fed corn, soybean meal and other grains which have to first be grown using large amounts of fertilizer, fuel, pesticides, water and land. EWG estimates that growing livestock feed in the U.S. alone requires 167 million pounds of pesticides and 17 billion pounds of nitrogen fertilizer each year across some 149 million acres of cropland. The process generates copious amounts of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide, while the output of methane—another potent greenhouse gas—from cattle is estimated to generate some 20 percent of overall U.S. methane emissions.

Stop feeding this to cows seems like a better solution and it goes right along with what I'm saying about us eating less of those things.

Edited by AAABatteries
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr Anonymous said:

Well let's not get nuts here.

There are Progressives who don't take things completely off the rails like AOC does.

The link Guru posted above...was that extreme?

I think she is a bit too "gung ho" quick to act before really looking and thinking about it...but I don't think she is all that extreme.

Edited by sho nuff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

Correct.  Probably because hey have different perspectives.  DeBlasio and Cuomo are looking out for the best interests of the city and the state, while AOC and other activists fighting the project are looking out for the best interests of the local community.  They might all be correctly weighing costs and benefits for their constituents. Or one side or the other could be wrong. This all makes perfect sense. I'm not sure why you find it interesting or convincing.

As for your last point, when you ask "how are thousands of jobs not good for her district?" and similar things you've said throughout this discussion you are clearly ignoring the costs entirely IMO.

I find it interesting for 2 reasons.  First there’s no right or wrong answer.  We can legitimately argue either side with no way of knowing who’s right at the end.  Second , I believe aoc naïveté with respect to playing politics will undermine her..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

I'd probably be ok with that - I'll be honest, I'm not that well versed in the cow farts environmental impact - it could be that it's going to kill us all within 50 years and if so then my thoughts on red meat not being as bad for you as some think really wouldn't matter.  There's other sources of protein and vitamins that we could offset with so in general I'm on board if knowledgeable people tell me we need to do it for environmental reasons.

Per wiki cow burps (not farts) are the problem and  consequently accounts for 21% of methane relessed into the stmosphere.

Not sure how the quantities stack up but methane is fat worse than co2 as a greenhouse gas, per the same wiki article 80 times worse for the same quantity. Some interesting graphs in that entry on other envirlnmental impacts as well (water use etc)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, timschochet said:

We still need to create wealth in order to share it. How do we do that? 

:shrug: I know very little about economics - won't pretend like I do.  But what I do know is the wealth is moving towards the top 1% and not being spread out - it's not sustainable IMO.  When driver-less cars put millions out of work we need to be prepared.  That's just one example of many - I don't think we are at the crisis point that we are with climate but we are inching along in that direction.  And if we continue to let the top 1% set all the rules for everybody then we are just going to continue the trend.  It's a good thing that people like Bernie and AOC highlight this.  Even if their solutions are dumb or not workable it doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.  And yes, it's a complex problem but one that needs to be discussed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, stlrams said:

I find it interesting for 2 reasons.  First there’s no right or wrong answer.  We can legitimately argue either side with no way of knowing who’s right at the end.  Second , I believe aoc naïveté with respect to playing politics will undermine her..

I find it interesting too.  But the bolded is a weird thing to say, given that you've been acting like there is a right answer for most of this discussion and also being very dismissive of any suggestion otherwise.

Also, I think she'll be fine. I've found her to be surprisingly sharp.  Considering the unreal amount of attention she's getting and her age and inexperience, I figured she'd have stepped in a lot more dog#### by now.

Edited by TobiasFunke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

It's more than cow farts.  Here's a quick little article of how much worse meat production is:  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/meat-and-environment/

Thanks for posting that - short read which is good for somebody with my attention span. :)

I'm not convinced by this that eating meat is the solution.  I think regulations on factory farms and the damage they are doing seems like an obvious step.  Not allowing them to damage our water is a no-brainer.  Not allowing the Amazon rain forest to be damaged is too.  But if we could eliminate subsidies to corn/wheat farmers and flip those farms to grass fed cows then I see that as a better solution all around (I'm making an assumption that "fixes" the problem).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TobiasFunke said:

I find it interesting too.  But the bolded is a weird thing to say, given that you've been acting like there is a right answer for most of this discussion and also being very dismissive of any suggestion otherwise.

Also, I think she'll be fine. I've found her to be surprisingly sharp.  Considering the unreal amount of attention she's getting and her age and inexperience, I figured she'd have stepped in a lot more dog#### by now.

I'd say she's stepped in a ton. It seems proportional to the amount of attention she's getting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, msommer said:

Per wiki cow burps (not farts) are the problem and  consequently accounts for 21% of methane relessed into the stmosphere.

Not sure how the quantities stack up but methane is fat worse than co2 as a greenhouse gas, per the same wiki article 80 times worse for the same quantity. Some interesting graphs in that entry on other envirlnmental impacts as well (water use etc)

The manure issues are a big problem also. The amount of crap a single cow creates each day is insane. 

ETA: 65 pounds of poop each day. 

Edited by parasaurolophus
so much poooooooooop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AAABatteries said:

But if we could eliminate subsidies to corn/wheat farmers and flip those farms to grass fed cows then I see that as a better solution all around (I'm making an assumption that "fixes" the problem).

I did not read the article posted - but it seems that a lot of stuff I have read recently, is that the world would be better off eating less meat - in both an ecological sense, and health sense (and in some ways and economic sense).

So, I don't think creating more cows is the right approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

And before you ask what we should feed them instead - the answer is grass.  Which would also help the overall problem.

Part of the answer perhaps.  But...

Quote

There is a dark side even to grassfed beef.

It takes a lot of grassland to raise a grassfed steer. Western rangelands are vast, but not nearly vast enough to sustain America’s 100 million head of cattle. There is no way that grassfed beef can begin to feed the current meat appetites of people in the United States, much less play a role in addressing world hunger.

https://foodrevolution.org/blog/the-truth-about-grassfed-beef/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sinn Fein said:

I did not read the article posted - but it seems that a lot of stuff I have read recently, is that the world would be better off eating less meat - in both an ecological sense, and health sense (and in some ways and economic sense).

So, I don't think creating more cows is the right approach.

Where did I say that?  I'm saying turn factory farming around and use those farms for grass-fed beef.  I'm not convinced that the average person eats too much meat.  I do think rich people on average probably eat too much.  Most lower middle-class and poor probably do not eat enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...