@gjohnsit

that that phrase sets the fire alarms ringing in my head. I've had two plants close on me, first to break the union and move it to SC, the 2nd to break the union and move it offshore. That little innocent-sounding phrase carries a lot of weight. It'll let them scuttle worker protections without having to move.
I'd like to think that she's sincere. I also think that she's already running up against the go-along-to-get-along "pragmatism" that characterizes the Donorcrats.
I'm so damn tired of being bitterly disappointed.

#2
That's a lot of assumptions based on a single phrase.

@Akze Most politicians approach health care from the standpoint of health insurance coverage which is NOT health care. I may have an untrained ear so I could be wrong, but when I read or hear the words "health care," I see them as that. I did not see the two red flag terms that are often used by politicians, health care access or health care insurance. IMO, if you have universal health care, then if you get sick, you do not have to have some sort of insurance to get treated, nor do you have to pay exorbitant fees for treatment under universal health care.

However, in the converse, the words "labor market market flexibility" send off massive red flags and alarm bells for me. That is a definite deal breaker on any plan, period. Labor market flexibility definitely has a bad connotation. People need stable, living wage jobs in order to have a stable lifestyle and to create stable communities. Flexibility of the labor force only works one way and that is to the benefit of the employers.

Color me skeptical about anything coming out of Congress that would benefit real people and the environment. However, I would to see more details before I make a final judgment on AOC's proposals.

#2 Bush put forth similar proposals, then Obama, and Hillary. Her proposal concentrates wealth in the hands of a few. Same product different branding. Universal health care simply means everyone is covered, and that can be though many means, seeing as she is hawking subsidies in her gnd, it fair to say she supports a program that would keep the predatory for profit insurance industry intact.

@Akze

Same product different branding. Universal health care simply means everyone is covered, and that can be though many means,

Thank you!

This is a favorite term used by Third Wayers/corporatist Dems--including Chuckie Schumer when he's evading the question of whether or not he would support a single-payer system.

Blue Onyx

"Dogs have given us their absolute all. We are the center of their universe. We are the focus of their love and faith and trust.

They serve us in return for scraps. It is without a doubt the best deal man has ever made."

#2 Bush put forth similar proposals, then Obama, and Hillary. Her proposal concentrates wealth in the hands of a few. Same product different branding. Universal health care simply means everyone is covered, and that can be though many means, seeing as she is hawking subsidies in her gnd, it fair to say she supports a program that would keep the predatory for profit insurance industry intact.

@thanatokephaloides

"a camel is a horse designed by a committee"

Colorful wording here. Who ya bin readin?

#2

Now... on to your points, you pick up on "universal health care". You know what? That's what I WANT to hear. I don't want to hear about payer this or plan that. I want to hear that health care is a human right so we are providing it... period. You know... universal health care.

The concern is what we already know we'll get when your health care concept (the correct concept, by the way) is run through that "select committee". I remind you of the old folk saying: "a camel is a horse designed by a committee". When our perfectly reasonable demand for universal health care as a human right got run through congressional committees in 2010, we got Romneycare -- a camel with the consumption of ten elephants and the docility and carrying capacity of a newborn zebra!

Combined with the other service to the boss classes in AOC's statement, there is genuine reason for concern.

I don't have any particular positive association with the 3 other things you riffed on, but the phrases "labor market flexibility", "Entrepreneurism", and "public bank" don't send me running for the hills.

I respectfully submit that these things should send you running for the hills. Or, at least, running to your nearest sporting-goods store for a good pair of binoculars for careful watching. "Labor market flexibility", in particular, is concern-making; the absolute last thing our country needs is for labor to go any further into a buyer's market. Instead, the "Green New Deal", if it works as advertised, should send all manner of labor into a seller's market, and hopefully back to a state whereunder a family needs only one parent to fill the breadwinner role rather than both parents needing to do so as it has been since the Reagan Administration.

Sure, I agree. Politicians need a careful watching... even ones we "like". But this goes beyond careful watching in my mind... well beyond.

Actually, I see this as a call for just that, most careful watching. As I commented on the Trump advertised military withdrawal from Syria, we shall see. It's just that AOC's adoption of Beltway Triple-Talk and the distinct possibility that opens up for her to sell us out (the way Obama did, among others) is disconcerting to say the least.

@thanatokephaloides

a select committee.

#2

Now... on to your points, you pick up on "universal health care". You know what? That's what I WANT to hear. I don't want to hear about payer this or plan that. I want to hear that health care is a human right so we are providing it... period. You know... universal health care.

The concern is what we already know we'll get when your health care concept (the correct concept, by the way) is run through that "select committee". I remind you of the old folk saying: "a camel is a horse designed by a committee". When our perfectly reasonable demand for universal health care as a human right got run through congressional committees in 2010, we got Romneycare -- a camel with the consumption of ten elephants and the docility and carrying capacity of a newborn zebra!

Combined with the other service to the boss classes in AOC's statement, there is genuine reason for concern.

I don't have any particular positive association with the 3 other things you riffed on, but the phrases "labor market flexibility", "Entrepreneurism", and "public bank" don't send me running for the hills.

I respectfully submit that these things should send you running for the hills. Or, at least, running to your nearest sporting-goods store for a good pair of binoculars for careful watching. "Labor market flexibility", in particular, is concern-making; the absolute last thing our country needs is for labor to go any further into a buyer's market. Instead, the "Green New Deal", if it works as advertised, should send all manner of labor into a seller's market, and hopefully back to a state whereunder a family needs only one parent to fill the breadwinner role rather than both parents needing to do so as it has been since the Reagan Administration.

Sure, I agree. Politicians need a careful watching... even ones we "like". But this goes beyond careful watching in my mind... well beyond.

Actually, I see this as a call for just that, most careful watching. As I commented on the Trump advertised military withdrawal from Syria, we shall see. It's just that AOC's adoption of Beltway Triple-Talk and the distinct possibility that opens up for her to sell us out (the way Obama did, among others) is disconcerting to say the least.

@thanatokephaloides

running for them thar hills!

Thank you for the excellent commentary.

Blue Onyx

#2

Now... on to your points, you pick up on "universal health care". You know what? That's what I WANT to hear. I don't want to hear about payer this or plan that. I want to hear that health care is a human right so we are providing it... period. You know... universal health care.

The concern is what we already know we'll get when your health care concept (the correct concept, by the way) is run through that "select committee". I remind you of the old folk saying: "a camel is a horse designed by a committee". When our perfectly reasonable demand for universal health care as a human right got run through congressional committees in 2010, we got Romneycare -- a camel with the consumption of ten elephants and the docility and carrying capacity of a newborn zebra!

Combined with the other service to the boss classes in AOC's statement, there is genuine reason for concern.

I don't have any particular positive association with the 3 other things you riffed on, but the phrases "labor market flexibility", "Entrepreneurism", and "public bank" don't send me running for the hills.

I respectfully submit that these things should send you running for the hills. Or, at least, running to your nearest sporting-goods store for a good pair of binoculars for careful watching. "Labor market flexibility", in particular, is concern-making; the absolute last thing our country needs is for labor to go any further into a buyer's market. Instead, the "Green New Deal", if it works as advertised, should send all manner of labor into a seller's market, and hopefully back to a state whereunder a family needs only one parent to fill the breadwinner role rather than both parents needing to do so as it has been since the Reagan Administration.

Sure, I agree. Politicians need a careful watching... even ones we "like". But this goes beyond careful watching in my mind... well beyond.

Actually, I see this as a call for just that, most careful watching. As I commented on the Trump advertised military withdrawal from Syria, we shall see. It's just that AOC's adoption of Beltway Triple-Talk and the distinct possibility that opens up for her to sell us out (the way Obama did, among others) is disconcerting to say the least.

@FuturePassed

out of those more conservative than her, both Democrats and Republicans, if she makes demands that are few in number and sound reasonable to their ears.

There's not a lot of evidence that that's so. It's what Obama did, more or less, when he wasn't openly advocating for right-wing Republican policies like Paygo. What we got out of it was Romneycare, improved CAFE standards, and the Lily Ledbetter Act.

We also got five more wars and the largest amount of pipeline laid in decades, as well as doubling down on fracking. And we got the normalization of torture, assassination, indefinite detention and mass warrantless surveillance.

And that's when we're dealing with the Obama wing of the party. The Clinton wing is worse.

#3 for a freshman representative. Since Edward Kennedy couldn't get several of them at the height of his influence, I think you're being a bit harsh.

@snoopydawg

to put credence in anything it says. The author blatantly (and falsely) accuses AOC of stealing the idea from the Green Party. While there are some similarities, probably becasue they have a similar goal, there are huge differences. One is that GP's platform calls for the nationalization of banks. Part of AOC's proposal is to establish public banks. (Jimmy Dore has a great piece on public banks.)

Green New Deal
The GP began calling their platform the Green New Deal in 2012. AOC's proposal is for a select committee on a Green New Deal which is quite distinct from a party platform.

The term Green New Deal was first coined by Thomas Friedman in 2007 and proposals were developed that year by the Green New Deal Group, some of which the GP adopted and some of which AO has incorporated in her plan. Van Jones wrote a book, Green Collar Economy, in 2008 as a proponent of the GND.

If the author had chosen to reveal this information, would she have said that the Green Party stole the idea from Friedman? This was a less than honest attempt to disparage AOC's plan.

You might want to take a look at the Intercept's article WITH A GREEN NEW DEAL, HERE’S WHAT THE WORLD COULD LOOK LIKE FOR THE NEXT GENERATION and the one from the Sierra Club What Is This Green New Deal Anyway? as their takes on the plan are more balanced and definitely more honest.

Did you know that Pelosi had called for a select committee on climate change on Nov 14?

#7

This right here should give everyone pause.

Though Ocasio-Cortez and others have claimed that the measure is “anti-establishment” and has been mocked by the corporate media, it has recently gained the support of over 30 House Democrats and won endorsements from mainstream media pundits such as Van Jones of CNN.

Jones — who is a senior fellow at the Clinton-connected, John Podesta-led think tank the Center for American Progress, and a former Obama adviser — recently called the Ocasio-Cortez-promoted plan “the smartest, most practical idea in U.S. politics to address two urgent problems: climate change and poverty.”

According to a draft of the plan that is currently available on Ocasio-Cortez’s website, the proposed House committee “shall be composed of 15 members appointed by the Speaker, of whom six may be appointed on the recommendation of the Minority Leader.” By all indications, the next speaker of the House is set to be Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), meaning that every member of the committee will be appointed by her, with six of those members potentially being appointed on the “recommendation” of the House’s top Republican. Notably, Ocasio-Cortez herself has recently backed Pelosi as House speaker.

While Pelosi’s status as an establishment, corporate Democrat is enough to create concern that those she would appoint to the committee would be just as beholden to corporate interests as she is, the version of the plan currently on Ocasio-Cortez’s website offers many more reasons for concern.

I remember the outrage when Obama threw Jones and many others under the bus after they worked on Obama's campaign and put him in the WH.

I think that article goes well with the one I posted down thread. I still think people should pay close attention to how her deal is worded. We have been played too many times.

@snoopydawg

He was kickass before he joined the Obama Administration. But I haven't trusted anything he's said since 2011.

#7

This right here should give everyone pause.

Though Ocasio-Cortez and others have claimed that the measure is “anti-establishment” and has been mocked by the corporate media, it has recently gained the support of over 30 House Democrats and won endorsements from mainstream media pundits such as Van Jones of CNN.

Jones — who is a senior fellow at the Clinton-connected, John Podesta-led think tank the Center for American Progress, and a former Obama adviser — recently called the Ocasio-Cortez-promoted plan “the smartest, most practical idea in U.S. politics to address two urgent problems: climate change and poverty.”

According to a draft of the plan that is currently available on Ocasio-Cortez’s website, the proposed House committee “shall be composed of 15 members appointed by the Speaker, of whom six may be appointed on the recommendation of the Minority Leader.” By all indications, the next speaker of the House is set to be Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), meaning that every member of the committee will be appointed by her, with six of those members potentially being appointed on the “recommendation” of the House’s top Republican. Notably, Ocasio-Cortez herself has recently backed Pelosi as House speaker.

While Pelosi’s status as an establishment, corporate Democrat is enough to create concern that those she would appoint to the committee would be just as beholden to corporate interests as she is, the version of the plan currently on Ocasio-Cortez’s website offers many more reasons for concern.

I remember the outrage when Obama threw Jones and many others under the bus after they worked on Obama's campaign and put him in the WH.

I think that article goes well with the one I posted down thread. I still think people should pay close attention to how her deal is worded. We have been played too many times.

@Akze

From Entrepreneur

An entrepreneur is an individual who, rather than working as an employee, founds and runs a small business, assuming all the risks and rewards of the venture. The entrepreneur is commonly seen as an innovator, a source of new ideas, goods, services and business/or procedures.

Entrepreneurs play a key role in any economy. These are the people who have the skills and initiative necessary to anticipate current and future needs and bring good new ideas to market. Entrepreneurs who prove to be successful in taking on the risks of a startup are rewarded with profits, fame and continued growth opportunities. Those who fail suffer losses and become less prevalent in the markets.

NASA was not an entrepreneur. It was fully government funded.

Budget of NASA

NASA's budget peaked in 1964–66, when it consumed roughly 4% of federal spending. The agency was building up to the first Moon landing; the Apollo program involved more than 34,000 NASA employees and 375,000 employees of industrial and university contractors.

#7 #7 #7 When said entrepreneur is publicy financed but gets to retain the profits. It's looting, point blank. She's building a football stadium for a billionaire instead of the TVA, and on that note laissez faire capitalism was at it's hight prior to FDR. You don't need shit from business. NASA put a man on the moon.

@Snode
That would be badass. Rather than have a lot of different ones broken up by sector/job type, everyone who works or would like to work, could be a paid member, and have representation. I don't know how long it would take to have it get totally jacked up and corrupt, but the core idea is badass to me.

#12 I've never worked under anything but what was described above as a flexible labor market, even when I lived in NYC. Most everyone I know still does.

“A flexible labor market is one where firms are under fewer regulations regarding the labor force and can, therefore, set wages, fire employees at will and change their work hours.”

Why aren't the unions fighting to extend the protections they have to the rest of us, protect the entire labor market? Seems like the more people had those protections, sheer numbers would make sure they stay protected.