Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[Swammerdami]

Lpetrich — Thanks again for this thread! Alexandria truly is a modern American heroine.

No, she isn't. Every time she has shown savior faire, she usually then shows short-sightedness. She was the keystone of "the gang", but she is not living up to the very large image some projected of her, though honestly, that could have been impossible. But overall, Ocasio-Cortez appears more lightweight than heavyweight.

She's not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree. But she works hard, she's sincere, she has strong humanitarian values, and she is very charismatic. In addition to her duties as a Congresswoman she has led programs to help her District. She is an inspiration. I was impressed watching her question Michael Cohen in a hearing: While most Members spend their time babbling uselessly just to maximize their face-time on CSPAN, AOC asks specific questions to bring facts to the attention of the public, and perhaps even to federal investigators.

Would it be better to have more Representatives like AOC? Or more like MTG?

And don't forget that her persona is largely a creation of media. As with Greta Thunberg, AOC may feel it silly that the media exaggerates her role, but she's smart to take advantage of that silliness.

The "Gang" does not have a "leader," but one of the Gang is Leader of a progressive caucus, and that Leader is NOT AOC.

Some of her progressive plans may be TOO progressive, but that doesn't worry me. She and other progressives are pushing against a system bought and paid for by the super-rich. To move even part way toward their utopian goals will be a victory.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

On close votes, every vote counts. But when a vote will be lop-sided, legislators have the chance to "send a message."

I'm very curious as to why [AOC] joined Boebert, Gosar and a few others to vote against the Aid for Ukraine bill.

"Joined" is a misleading word here! AOC has spoken in favor of humanitarian and defensive military aid for Ukraine, while Boebert and Gosar are presumably part of Tucker Carlson's anti-anti-Putin campaign.

AOC is worried about a "slippery slope" that could land the U.S. in another precarious military adventure. For over 70 years U.S. Presidents have asserted the right to wage war with no Congressional declaration, so her worry may be justified. My impression is that she would have voted Yea if the military support for Ukraine were worded more carefully.

I'm not certain how much more restraint she needs to see out of the Biden Administration. And you can't be in "favor" of defense aid and humanitarian aid while voting against it.

My response to this is in the post you quoted, as I've shown by bolding. This crisis is dangerous — analysts think we are now closer to nuclear war than we've been since the Cuban crisis 60 years ago. As much as we hate Putin, he MUST be given a way to back down. I agree that any announcement/legislation should be worded very carefully.

And our care for the Ukrainian people comes with hypocrisy. The war that Putin (with his ally) has waged against the Syrian people is worse than this: More refugees, more deaths, illegal weapons of mass destruction. Yet people get outraged with a war in the heart of Europe, and not when it's "just another Islamic country."

 

[Harry Bosch]

Lpetrich — Thanks again for this thread! Alexandria truly is a modern American heroine.

No, she isn't. Every time she has shown savior faire, she usually then shows short-sightedness. She was the keystone of "the gang", but she is not living up to the very large image some projected of her, though honestly, that could have been impossible. But overall, Ocasio-Cortez appears more lightweight than heavyweight.

She's not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree. But she works hard, she's sincere, she has strong humanitarian values, and she is very charismatic. In addition to her duties as a Congresswoman she has led programs to help her District. She is an inspiration. I was impressed watching her question Michael Cohen in a hearing: While most Members spend their time babbling uselessly just to maximize their face-time on CSPAN, AOC asks specific questions to bring facts to the attention of the public, and perhaps even to federal investigators.

Would it be better to have more Representatives like AOC? Or more like MTG?

And don't forget that her persona is largely a creation of media. As with Greta Thunberg, AOC may feel it silly that the media exaggerates her role, but she's smart to take advantage of that silliness.

The "Gang" does not have a "leader," but one of the Gang is Leader of a progressive caucus, and that Leader is NOT AOC.

Some of her progressive plans may be TOO progressive, but that doesn't worry me. She and other progressives are pushing against a system bought and paid for by the super-rich. To move even part way toward their utopian goals will be a victory.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

On close votes, every vote counts. But when a vote will be lop-sided, legislators have the chance to "send a message."

I'm very curious as to why [AOC] joined Boebert, Gosar and a few others to vote against the Aid for Ukraine bill.

"Joined" is a misleading word here! AOC has spoken in favor of humanitarian and defensive military aid for Ukraine, while Boebert and Gosar are presumably part of Tucker Carlson's anti-anti-Putin campaign.

AOC is worried about a "slippery slope" that could land the U.S. in another precarious military adventure. For over 70 years U.S. Presidents have asserted the right to wage war with no Congressional declaration, so her worry may be justified. My impression is that she would have voted Yea if the military support for Ukraine were worded more carefully.

I'm not certain how much more restraint she needs to see out of the Biden Administration. And you can't be in "favor" of defense aid and humanitarian aid while voting against it.

My response to this is in the post you quoted, as I've shown by bolding. This crisis is dangerous — analysts think we are now closer to nuclear war than we've been since the Cuban crisis 60 years ago. As much as we hate Putin, he MUST be given a way to back down. I agree that any announcement/legislation should be worded very carefully.

And our care for the Ukrainian people comes with hypocrisy. The war that Putin (with his ally) has waged against the Syrian people is worse than this: More refugees, more deaths, illegal weapons of mass destruction. Yet people get outraged with a war in the heart of Europe, and not when it's "just another Islamic country."

Well, we are closer to nuclear war because Putin is a madman. If he isn't defeated in Ukraine, he'll probably invade Poland which is a NATO country, and hence would be WW3.

Secondly, I don't think that Ukraine is analogous to Syria at all. For one, people in America identify easier with Ukraine because many of us have travelled to Eastern Europe and have relatives there. I personally have inlaws that live 10 miles from the Ukranian border in Poland. Secondly, the countries of Europe are all mostly democratic and peaceful. They are vital to economic and trade partners with the US. They are our allies in NATO. They've come to our aid, we've come to their aid. Our ties to Europe are historic and deep. What are our ties to Syria? To be honest with you, I think that we should have completely withdrawn from the middle east many many years ago. I think that it's a religious hell hole. Have any of the middle east stepped up to help the effort against Russia? Offered to drill more oil?

I feel terrible for the Syrian war. But it was (is) a civil war. Russia is an outside invader to Ukraine. Russia wants to kill Uraine's leaders and "denazi them".

Finally, we have substantial allies in Europe. The Ukrainians are doing the fighting. We're not. The refugees are all women and children. The rest stay and fight. They Syrians had no chance against Russia.

There is no comparison between the Ukrainian war and the Syrian war. We should only get involved in actions where we have a chance of winning, and when our side has popular support and is democratic.

Clearly there is a great hypocrisy on how refugees are treated. White skinned refugees have always been preferred. We've been debating this for many years on this forum. Trump came right out and stated that he wished that all refugees were all blond, blue eyed and from Norway! But not sure how this relates to whether or not we should provide aid to Ukraine.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Lpetrich — Thanks again for this thread! Alexandria truly is a modern American heroine.

No, she isn't. Every time she has shown savior faire, she usually then shows short-sightedness. She was the keystone of "the gang", but she is not living up to the very large image some projected of her, though honestly, that could have been impossible. But overall, Ocasio-Cortez appears more lightweight than heavyweight.

She's not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree. But she works hard, she's sincere, she has strong humanitarian values, and she is very charismatic. In addition to her duties as a Congresswoman she has led programs to help her District. She is an inspiration. I was impressed watching her question Michael Cohen in a hearing: While most Members spend their time babbling uselessly just to maximize their face-time on CSPAN, AOC asks specific questions to bring facts to the attention of the public, and perhaps even to federal investigators.

Would it be better to have more Representatives like AOC? Or more like MTG?

False dichotomy.

And don't forget that her persona is largely a creation of media.

I pretty much said that.

I'm very curious as to why [AOC] joined Boebert, Gosar and a few others to vote against the Aid for Ukraine bill.

"Joined" is a misleading word here! AOC has spoken in favor of humanitarian and defensive military aid for Ukraine, while Boebert and Gosar are presumably part of Tucker Carlson's anti-anti-Putin campaign.

AOC is worried about a "slippery slope" that could land the U.S. in another precarious military adventure. For over 70 years U.S. Presidents have asserted the right to wage war with no Congressional declaration, so her worry may be justified. My impression is that she would have voted Yea if the military support for Ukraine were worded more carefully.

I'm not certain how much more restraint she needs to see out of the Biden Administration. And you can't be in "favor" of defense aid and humanitarian aid while voting against it.

My response to this is in the post you quoted, as I've shown by bolding. This crisis is dangerous — analysts think we are now closer to nuclear war than we've been since the Cuban crisis 60 years ago. As much as we hate Putin, he MUST be given a way to back down. I agree that any announcement/legislation should be worded very carefully.

He can just stop. I don't see Biden calling out a Treaty of Versailles here. The trouble Putin has is that this keeps getting worse. Ukraine is entitled to regaining its territory and compensation for damage. And Putin doesn't even want to get to the point about a withdrawal. He wants Ukraine to give up everything and territory. It is important not to isolate Russia, but when Putin's compromise involves Ukraine ceding territory and disarming, that means we are dealing with someone that is hard to negotiate with. And passing a bill with aid in it to Ukraine isn't escalating the situation. NATO has gone to great lengths to not even "escalate" this.

And our care for the Ukrainian people comes with hypocrisy. The war that Putin (with his ally) has waged against the Syrian people is worse than this: More refugees, more deaths, illegal weapons of mass destruction. Yet people get outraged with a war in the heart of Europe, and not when it's "just another Islamic country."

Syria's war was a Civil War. Russia was supporting their puppet for access to the warm water port. Yes, our ethics here are not all too high. The nations we pick and choose to defend exposes how little we actually care. Which is why I look to Canada. They rarely pick the wrong side.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, we are closer to nuclear war because Putin is a madman. If he isn't defeated in Ukraine, he'll probably invade Poland which is a NATO country, and hence would be WW3.

I don't think he's crazy enough to go into Poland given how his troops have performed to date.

Clearly there is a great hypocrisy on how refugees are treated. White skinned refugees have always been preferred. We've been debating this for many years on this forum. Trump came right out and stated that he wished that all refugees were all blond, blue eyed and from Norway! But not sure how this relates to whether or not we should provide aid to Ukraine.

There's another factor at work also--we get skittish about Muslim refugees because of the jihadists we get along with them. We aren't going to be getting jihadists from Ukraine.

 

[lpetrich]

Katie Hill on Twitter: "Taking joy at being able to hire people at lower wages because they’re struggling more but thinking you have a culture that attracts good workers is some psycho shit." / Twitter
noting a leaked Applebee's memo where some executive said that higher gasoline prices are great for business because he can then offer his workers less pay.

Then
Katie Hill on Twitter: "Contrast with this: (link)" / Twitter
noting
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "From my first day in office, we set records for living wages.

Then we won a 21% MRA increase so every House staffer could have that chance.

Salary transparency is key to pay equity. While we figure out updated allocations, here’s our current salary table for staff to reference: (pic link)" / Twitter

Employment Level	Tier Start: $/yr
Entry	54,000
	55,500
Mid-Level	65,500
	70,000
Director	80,000
	85,000
Deputy COS	90,000
COS	120,000

COS = Chief of Staff

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "A few notes: -
This is our pay table *pre-MRA increase.* Happy to update if this changes.
- We don’t negotiate salaries on an individual basis
- we find that breeds pay inequity. We pay by position & disclose salary at job listing.
- House staffers: use this!

Feel free to ask Qs" / Twitter

 

[lpetrich]

I find this funny:
Turncoat Don on Twitter: "Nancy's Angels starring AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar and Bernie Sanders (vid link)" / Twitter
Saying that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has turned AOC, RT, and IO into sellouts.

AOC then answered tweeted questions.

Adam on Twitter: "@AOC Does the COS work twice as hard as an entry level staffer?" / Twitter
then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "@adamTHX1138 Entry level staff have strong 40 hr protections. As responsibilities grow, senior staff inevitably work over that to meet demands of Congress. That combined w/ high technical experience is reflected in pay. We do have a pay ceiling- no more than 2.5/3x entry level (need to check)" / Twitter

Wes on Twitter: "@AOC Records or no, that still seems low for DC's HCOL" / Twitter
then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "@vonmew1 I agree! Sadly Congress provides operating budgets far under what is necessary to serve the public and pay staff appropriately. South Australian parliament apparently pays 75k minimum. That’s more in line with what I believe is appropriate for the demands and skills of this work." / Twitter

HCOL = high cost of living, something that the DC area has a reputation for.

 

[lpetrich]

Andy Spicer on Twitter: "@AOC That’s really great that you pay entry level employees that much! How do you do it and still make a profit? Or at least break even?" / Twitter
then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "@andyspicer We have to make sacrifices in other areas of our operating budget. It’s tough at times but worth it" / Twitter

A profit??? This isn't a for-profit business. Elsewhere, she says that a sacrifice is to have fewer staffers than some Congresspeople, but she prefers well-rested staffers to those who have to work extra jobs.

In any case, here is an example that the questioner might understand: a part of some large business. Does one expect a business's marketing department to make a profit? The legal department? Etc.

 

[lpetrich]

Michael Appell on Twitter: "@AOC So there’s no reward for hard work and outstanding performance!" / Twitter
then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "@AppellMappell We have a culture of excellence and our success is collective. Slouches are not a fit here, *everyone* works their tails off and our team is happier knowing everyone is paid on the value of their work & not if they were taught salary negotiation growing up.We cultivate talent too" / Twitter

The Madd Wikkid on Twitter: "@AOC Offhand, "- We don’t negotiate salaries on an individual basis" reads like "we're not willing to pay to acquire/retain exceptional talent"" / Twitter
then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "@mwikkid Our staff determines salaries as a collective. They like it and it’s been great for culture. Maybe others prefer salaries negotiated in secret. We tend to find that disproportionately results in poc/women/first gen/working class people getting paid less for equal or better work." / Twitter

AOC shows that she is not a Randroid. I wonder if she's ever read any of Ayn Rand's books or watched the movie viersions of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

 

[lpetrich]

Gary Thurner on Twitter: "@AOC If you don’t reward performance; why would the best people stay?" / Twitter
then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "@GaryThurner Because we care about them and they care about the work. I am also okay w/people pursuing dreams & supporting their journey. We need good people everywhere. We are always cultivating & investing from within so we always have the best people,no matter who is on the team. Many stay" / Twitter

Then
Gary Thurner on Twitter: "@AOC Well, I guess that’s “fair”. I think the difference is, we need to make a profit to stay in business and reward our team members. You just need to take tax payer money." / Twitter
then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "@GaryThurner We have brutal budgets like lots of other orgs/bizs do and it takes sacrifices to make this work. Everyone uses public funds, whether it’s PPP or tax breaks or public schools or a legislative budget, bc that’s what it takes to function as a developed society.Everyone is different" / Twitter

 

[Derec]

Everyone is different" / Twitter

And yet, to pay them differently by performance would be "inequity".

 

[Derec]

We have a culture of excellence and our success is collective. [...]Our staff determines salaries as a collective.

Emphasis mine.

AOC shows that she is not a Randroid. I wonder if she's ever read any of Ayn Rand's books or watched the movie viersions of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

AOC is a collectivist. You do not have to be a "Randoid" or have read any of her books to understand that people are individuals and that they should be treated individually.

 

[Derec]

A profit??? This isn't a for-profit business.

Break-even then. She still has a budget and cannot just go to the "Modern Monetary Theory" money tree three major deciduous forests to pay her staffers.

Elsewhere, she says that a sacrifice is to have fewer staffers than some Congresspeople, but she prefers well-rested staffers to those who have to work extra jobs.

Most people make less than $50k and no no need "extra jobs" to make ends meet.

Does one expect a business's marketing department to make a profit?

One would certainly expect a demonstrable return on investment for their marketing schemes. Otherwise, what's the point?

The legal department? Etc.

Even there, there needs to be utility in excess of costs to justify it. Otherwise you can downsize the legal department or even outsource it outright, as smaller businesses do.

 

[Derec]

South Australian parliament apparently pays 75k minimum. That’s more in line with what I believe is appropriate for the demands and skills of this work.

Of course, Australian dollars are worth quite a bit less than ours.

 

[Hermit]

We have a culture of excellence and our success is collective. [...]Our staff determines salaries as a collective.

You do not have to be a "Randoid" or have read any of her books to understand that people are individuals and that they should be treated individually.

Individuals do decide to act collectively more often than you realise or are willing to acknowledge. They do so in formal as well as informal ways. Think trade or industry based unions, rock bands, church choirs, buying and building cooperatives, taking turns as the designated driver during weekly pub-crawls, making a roster for who is going to wash the dishes on what day in a shared house et cetera. Not only is there nothing wrong with collective action and decision-making, but the members of the various collectives are usually better off for being part of them.

Elsewhere, she says that a sacrifice is to have fewer staffers than some Congresspeople, but she prefers well-rested staffers to those who have to work extra jobs.

Most people make less than $50k and no no need "extra jobs" to make ends meet.

Maybe in Georgia, Alabama or the flyover states. Not so much in New York or Washington.

 

[Derec]

Individuals do decide to act collectively more often than you realise or are willing to acknowledge.

Straw man much? I never said they don't.

Maybe in Georgia, Alabama or the flyover states. Not so much in New York or Washington.

I meant overall. Median personal income is just shy of $36k.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Everyone is different" / Twitter

And yet, to pay them differently by performance would be "inequity".

Pay for performance leads to employee burnout. People are leaving their jobs due to a poor work/life balance or for not feeling valued at work or for having little path to promotion. And if they had as many different bosses as I’ve had in the navy (about fourteen), I’d venture to guess the number one reason for leaving would be “working for an asshole”.
“Pay for performance” will become a dirty term, an indication that this is a company to avoid.
We’ve been trained that monetary compensation equates to happiness. The pandemic (and I’ve told you this before) has shown people a side of life unfamiliar to them. A side where the aforementioned statement of money=happiness is not true. That owning more of your own time has much more value than pay compensation.
Don’t believe me? Maybe you’ll believe McKinsey.
The Great Attrition.

 

[lpetrich]

South Australian parliament apparently pays 75k minimum. That’s more in line with what I believe is appropriate for the demands and skills of this work.

Of course, Australian dollars are worth quite a bit less than ours.

I went to xe.com and I found that 1 AUD is currently worth 0.75 USD. That gives $56,000 / year in USD.

 

[Hermit]

South Australian parliament apparently pays 75k minimum. That’s more in line with what I believe is appropriate for the demands and skills of this work.

Of course, Australian dollars are worth quite a bit less than ours.

I went to xe.com and I found that 1 AUD is currently worth 0.75 USD. That gives $56,000 / year in USD.

Also, cost of living is cheaper in South Australia. Housing costs in particular, both rental and ownership, in Adelaide is the second-cheapest of all Australian capital cities. Only Darwin is more affordable, but that city is not particularly nice to live in.

 

[Metaphor]

We have a culture of excellence and our success is collective. [...]Our staff determines salaries as a collective.

Emphasis mine.

AOC shows that she is not a Randroid. I wonder if she's ever read any of Ayn Rand's books or watched the movie viersions of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

AOC is a collectivist. You do not have to be a "Randoid" or have read any of her books to understand that people are individuals and that they should be treated individually.

AOC talks about pay equity in her office but there is no pay equity in her office. Her chief of staff gets twice as much as her entry level employees, and AOC, of course, gets paid significantly more than her COS.

 

[blastula]

Sorry to break this you, lpetrich.