A Living Wage, Please!

[_subgenius]

.....so, to you, dark money loopholes have nothing to do with honesty/dishonesty?

This is tough for you, but it’s super simple for others.

naw, its glaringly simple...in spite of your efforts.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s sentiment is straightforward: lawmakers continually denied a CoL wage adjustment could rely increasingly on dark money support, (which is not necessarily illegal or ‘honest’, or ‘dishonest’) but which may place specific lobbyist interests above those of a lawmaker’s larger constituency.

hmm...2 things jump out here that were not in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's statement...erhaps you can clarify?
1. "continually denied"?, ok I can live with that leap...but are you saying that the current salary of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is at a level that merits a CoL increase?...she notes "pressure", is that what her current salary, sans CoL, creates?
2. How do "Dark Money Loopholes" (DML) place specific lobbyist interests above those of a lawmaker’s larger constituency ? and is that placement illegal or dishonest? Is a lawmaker bound by oath or duty of office to place larger constituency interests above those of a specific lobbyist?

For a guy who has posted as many photoshopped images as you have in promotion of dishonesty, I can see why you want to get caught up in that angle here. But there’s no need to assume that everyone else shares your behavior or perspective.

I am just trying to understand Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's reasoning...and it seems like you are a little unclear on what she is saying as well.

[_subgenius]

Direct quote from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that matches your exposition, subbie. It's not hard if it's actually her words and not your own fabrication.

Oh, ok...here ya go.

[_canpakes]

Direct quote from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that matches your exposition, subbie. It's not hard if it's actually her words and not your own fabrication.

Oh, ok...here ya go.

Nice link’n’run. : D

[_canpakes]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s sentiment is straightforward: lawmakers continually denied a CoL wage adjustment could rely increasingly on dark money support, (which is not necessarily illegal or ‘honest’, or ‘dishonest’) but which may place specific lobbyist interests above those of a lawmaker’s larger constituency.

hmm...2 things jump out here that were not in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's statement...erhaps you can clarify?
1. "continually denied"?, ok I can live with that leap...but are you saying that the current salary of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is at a level that merits a CoL increase?...she notes "pressure", is that what her current salary, sans CoL, creates?

Are you assessing the general legitimacy of CoL wage increases? For this particular wage, or for any wage? Based on the time passed since the last adjustment, or in some part on considerations of locale? And is there a level of pay that doesn’t merit a CoL increase? What is that level? Maybe sketch those out so that you can define the criteria you’re pretending to judge by.

2. How do "Dark Money Loopholes" (DML) place specific lobbyist interests above those of a lawmaker’s larger constituency ? and is that placement illegal or dishonest? Is a lawmaker bound by oath or duty of office to place larger constituency interests above those of a specific lobbyist?

First, ask yourself why lobbying exists, and then if it is ‘illegal or dishonest’, if you must insist on concentrating on the latter. Again, refine your complaint and define your criteria for judgment.

For a guy who has posted as many photoshopped images as you have in promotion of dishonesty, I can see why you want to get caught up in that angle here. But there’s no need to assume that everyone else shares your behavior or perspective.

I am just trying to understand Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's reasoning...and it seems like you are a little unclear on what she is saying as well.

I understand it quite well. I’m not the one who seems to be stumbling over her statement; that would be your limitation.

[_honorentheos]

Direct quote from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that matches your exposition, subbie. It's not hard if it's actually her words and not your own fabrication.

Oh, ok...here ya go.

And this is the problem. We can read what she said in the quote in the OP, read what you claim, and see you aren't actually speaking to what she said.

Again, direct quote that ties to your claims of what she said.

[_honorentheos]

I am just trying to understand Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's reasoning.

That's easier if you actually start with her comments and explanations rather than some right wingers "so what you are really saying is..."

[_subgenius]

I am just trying to understand Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's reasoning.

That's easier if you actually start with her comments and explanations rather than some right wingers "so what you are really saying is..."

Oh, now I understand your disability.
When she says "Voting against a CoL increase for members of Congress sounds nice", she is speaking about her current salary in a political context. Not that the CoL is necessary or unnecessary, but that the "vote" in support or against the CoL increase is one of "sounds nice"...as in the majority of her constituents might have the incorrect grasp of reality on the matter. Wothout argument, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's position is that a CoL increase must be voted "for".

When she says "increases pressure on them [Congress] to keep Dark Money loopholes open" she is speaking specifically about legal sources of money. But at this point, is she casting a shadow on DMLs? It was mentioned that such sources of money may (or may not) run counter to her larger constituency, which makes sense for the concept of a "representative"...but if the larger constituency is being dismissed by "sounds good", then what is her motive?....that she "knows better"?


Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez clearly states that Congress needs a CoL increase, which can only mean that current salary levels are out of pace with a cost of living...that current salaries are unable to sustain a living and there must be compensation for some percentage of inflation in the gods and services required for "living" lest these downtrodden representatives seek to make up the difference elsewhere. Surely, this must be evaluated against reality (something you and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are adverse to on this matter).
So, first you must believe that her salary is not sufficient for "living" which results in a condition where she must compensate for the shortfall via any number of sources....and DMLs are allegedly one source for such compensation? Is this not the argument she has constructed?

Now forgive my cursory familiarity with DMLs, but is it legal for a US Representative to use, in any way, DMLs for any living costs?

Because she concludes with some gibberish about campaign finance reform and a blatant false equivocation with a shout out to minimum wage workers....what does campaign finance reform have to do with her salary?

[_canpakes]

So, first you must believe that her salary is not sufficient for "living" which results in a condition where she must compensate for the shortfall via any number of sources....and DMLs are allegedly one source for such compensation? Is this not the argument she has constructed?

I’m going to pick this passage out of your word salad, as it perfectly illustrates either your ongoing comprehension problem, or disingenuousness. Your pick as to which is the problem.

Can you tell me where, in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s post, she mentions a living wage, or that her own salary is “not sufficient for living”?

I’ll give you a head start on your answer: you can’t. The voices in your head are confused.

Reading is fundamental, subs. You should work on that skill, or reconsider your tendency for mendacity.

[_honorentheos]

So subbie, do you then disagree with Jason Chaffetz who, last year said,

“I really do believe Congress would be much better served if there was a housing allowance for members of Congress,” Chaffetz told The Hill in an interview in his Capitol office, where he sleeps whenever he’s in Washington. “In today’s climate, nobody’s going to suggest or vote for a pay raise. But you shouldn’t have to be among the wealthiest of Americans to serve properly in Congress...Washington, D.C., is one of the most expensive places in the world, and I flat-out cannot afford a mortgage in Utah, kids in college and a second place here in Washington, D.C.,” Chaffetz said. “I think a $2,500 housing allowance would be appropriate and a real help to have at least a decent quality of life in Washington if you’re going to expect people to spend hundreds of nights a year here...it would allow the non-millionaires to participate and you would be able to have your spouse join you here."

[_honorentheos]

Also, please point out where she said SHE was the one who would resort to shady practices.

There are ideological reasons you could bring up to explain why you think Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez represents a bad direction in US politics and the trend the progressive movement is taking if so inclined. It would possibly even be an interesting, informative discussion. But making crap up about her to demonize her as a person is not that, and just makes you look really, really dumb.