• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

A 28 year old former bartender just beat virtually every megacorporation in the US for congress

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Jaskalas said:
Socialist? More like an American victim of trickle down.
Wages would be THREE TIMES what they are today if we didn't suffer losses from our parents and grandparents. People today work the same job as past generations, but earn far - far less.
Click to expand...


But don’t be touching the boomers social security!
 
That is quite a platform she is campaigning on....Did anyone ask her during the campaign on how she hopes to accomplish/fund all of this? Affordable housing in NYC? Fully funded public universities? and that is just two items on her list...
 
sportage said:
What's the big deal?
This is the year of the woman ( in politics ).
People had enough of all the grabbing and womanizing and old farts that should have been term limited long ago.
But about that turnout. OUCH!
If democrats hope to win by low turnout, good luck with that.
I'm sure the Trump crowd will be ready, willing and able to come out for Donald. Especially now that they got their Muslim ban.
Next is the wall, then good bye abortion, then more bans, then hunting down and jailing illegals, then a brand new effort to take away marriage from those nilly guys, and toss in the US Supreme Court.

Republicans are plenty energized.
Democrats, I guess, are waiting for a pink unicorn.
Or maybe Bernie Sanders?
Or Oprah?
How about Oprah and Bernie riding in on a pink unicorn?
That's probably it....
Click to expand...
Sorry, but the "Year of the Woman" (in politics) was 1992.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_of_the_Woman
Try again.
 
spacejamz said:
That is quite a platform she is campaigning on....Did anyone ask her during the campaign on how she hopes to accomplish/fund all of this? Affordable housing in NYC? Fully funded public universities? and that is just two items on her list...
Click to expand...

Wow, promising shit that exists in like, every other western democracy.
 
spacejamz said:
Affordable housing in NYC?
Click to expand...

Hell I could do this one and not cost taxpayers anything if you put me in a position to pull the right levers. Zoning and the Community Board process in NYC is broken beyond anybodies wildest imagination. A few old cranks in any given neighborhood have been allowed to artificially constrain the housing supply. I'd blanket up zone a lot of corridors, outright sell FAR in return for bulging affordable housing, and shitcan CB approvals for basically everything.
 
UglyCasanova said:
Her platform. Universal Jobs Guarantee, wonder how she plans on doing that

DgqjI6QUwAAgoS1.jpg
Click to expand...
Makes it harder for GOP to attack. She's for jobs not handouts
 
Paladin3 said:
Questions: Where will the money come from to realize her platform? I'd like to see it happen as much as anyone, but the idea that one can simply vote for prosperity is one of the great lies of democracy. Wealth is still finite. For those policies to be implemented you would pretty much need extremely high taxes on everyone and mandatory work enrollment, wouldn't we? Not to mention the dream of an upper-middle class or better lifestyle would end. Or could everyone "drop out" and still get their needs provided by government? If enough did so it wouldn't work, would it? I'd love to spend the rest of my life fishing more and working less, if the government makes housing and other stuff a right.
Click to expand...

I imagine the first thing you could do is find it by about $1 trillion or so by repealing the recent tax cuts.

I imagine the Democrats learned their lesson in fiscal responsibility from the ACA. That legislation was fully funded and nobody cared. For better or for worse you will probably see the Democrats take on some of the fiscal irresponsibility Republicans are known for.
 
K1052 said:
Hell I could do this one and not cost taxpayers anything if you put me in a position to pull the right levers. Zoning and the Community Board process in NYC is broken beyond anybodies wildest imagination. A few old cranks in any given neighborhood have been allowed to artificially constrain the housing supply. I'd blanket up zone a lot of corridors, outright sell FAR in return for bulging affordable housing, and shitcan CB approvals for basically everything.
Click to expand...

Sigh. Someday we will live in a world where people realize the way to make houses cheaper is to make more houses.
 
Paladin3 said:
Questions: Where will the money come from to realize her platform? I'd like to see it happen as much as anyone, but the idea that one can simply vote for prosperity is one of the great lies of democracy. Wealth is still finite. For those policies to be implemented you would pretty much need extremely high taxes on everyone and mandatory work enrollment, wouldn't we? Not to mention the dream of an upper-middle class or better lifestyle would end. Or could everyone "drop out" and still get their needs provided by government? If enough did so it wouldn't work, would it? I'd love to spend the rest of my life fishing more and working less, if the government makes housing and other stuff a right.
Click to expand...
A start might be redirecting spending. We went form 400B deficit and going down when Obama left. Now we have 1T under Trump and on a path to break all records.

Those tax cuts for the rich should have been redirected towards infrastructure. The country desperately needs it and the increase in jobs has a multiplier effect on the economy.
 
Yes, but as Ugly Casanova already stated, how is she going to provide universal jobs? The devil's in the details. Any competent high school debater should be able to shoot her down. Where will the jobs come from? Who will pay their salaries? What will you do with the people who won't take the jobs that are offered? If training is required for the jobs, who will provide (pay for) the training? Will the jobs be accessible via public transportation for those the don't drive? Who will monitor the jobs to ensure that all EEO / ADA guidelines are met, i.e., is current staffing in those departments adequate to handle the new jobs that will be created? Will the addition of new jobs result in increased demand for childcare?

Don't get me wrong, I think the potential of employing more people is a good thing. I'm only pointing out that it's easy to make statements like the kind she did.

HomerJS said:
Makes it harder for GOP to attack. She's for jobs not handouts
Click to expand...
 
fskimospy said:
Sigh. Someday we will live in a world where people realize the way to make houses cheaper is to make more houses.
Click to expand...

Some places are figuring it out. CA seems to finally be turning this particular corner but it's taking younger people to do it.

Generational turnover for the Democrats is overdue but it appears to be starting with some gusto. Party needs people who reflect the future in all ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top