AOC isn’t the only AOC on the Hill

The rising chorus of reasoned voices needs to gain more and more traction. I love that women are leading this country in new, invigorated, strong ways.

This clip of California Democratic congresswoman Katie Porter rocking JP Morgan’s CEO, Jamie Dimon’s pathetic little brain with fucking real world facts. It’s high time the fat cats reasonably redistribute their company’s wealth. For Pete’s sake. It’s not goddamn rocket science.

Or maybe it is. Here’s our first family struggling with some basic math:


I’ll put another amazing clip below the fold of Banking Fat Cats getting grilled by congress.

4 thoughts on “AOC isn’t the only AOC on the Hill

  1. Of course, 1600/month for a one bedroom apartment is pretty outrageous. And if she can only work a starting job, that most people get right out of high school, she should not be living there.

    The US already has a very progressive tax system. Do you think the government should not only tax income but full stop just start taking property from wealthy people?

    Is wealth gap itself bad? I did a blog about this here:

    1. 🤔$1600/month for a one bedroom in DC is average or less, man. My buddy lives there and shares a one bed with his girlfriend for $1850. And he’s not making a lot of money. He’s a graphic designer.

      Opening with a general attack on AOC in an article that I only lead with a reference to her is as pretentious as it is presumptuous.

      I value your imposition of responses and links to your site. It’s noble and very blog building.

      But, man, chill. Recognize that AOC was only a reference. Wow. If you had something to say about the post … hit me.

      I’m a little confused by the use of “full stop” when you didn’t stop immediately afterward.

      And no, I don’t believe the government should take property from wealthy people. This isn’t Sherwood Forest. I thought you were the one who wrote that informed me that conservatives understand liberal values better than liberals? Your idea resembles more Fox News approach than a MSNBC one (I watch neither. I have no idea what I’m saying.)

    2. Shit. I jumped to conclusions on your response. “She” is the hypothetical person?

      Mouth. Insert foot. I got it.

      I’m still confused by full stop.

      I’ll leave my fuck up there in full transparency to the conversation. I’m trying to hit a deadline, but I’m trying to pay attention to your responses here on my blog.


  2. No problem.

    I am not sure why I used the expression full stop. That is indeed odd and it doesn’t fit. But it is something I will likely do again.

    In any event, in many places in the US $1600/month will be enough to mortgage a large home.( fha can be helpful with the down payment.) Of course in those places you will not make as much money as you will in DC or California etc. But overall I think people will find it easier to live where the cost of living is much lower.

    Ultimately I think the first video puts this issue forward. Must every job pay enough to support a family all on its own? Or can we have some jobs that pay less? My view is we should allow people to decide for themselves what they will work for. Sometimes people want a really easy job and they only have to support themselves and can split rent etc.

    Offering low paying jobs available is not itself immoral in my opinion. If someone takes such a job and then tries to support a family on that pay that will be difficult. But it is not a valid ground to attack the person who is simply offering the position. People are free not to work there if they do not want to. If I offer you $300 for a painting you may be insulted but hopefully my making this offer is not seen as immoral.

    If one person tells another hey I will do this work for $X.00 and the other person agrees I do not think the government should step in and say “oh no sorry guys I’m Donald Trump and I say you can’t do that. So I am making it illegal for you to work at that price.” Immediately the government makes it illegal to do what is on its face clearly moral and beneficial to both sides. Why would we think Donald Trump knows better what is in your interest than you do yourself?

    But even if you say we should make sure anyone holding a single full time job must be able to support a family, how do we do that? If we just increase the minimum wage many items will become a bit more expensive but mainly low skill jobs will become more scarce. Taking jobs away is not a good solution.

    Finally yes when someone who is only qualified to hold an entry level job is trying to raise a child on their own this is not a normal situation. It is the type of situation where various charities can and do play a role. I know in my own community we have food pantries and clothing offerings as well as other charities that help with this situation. People should give money to these charities so that they can do good work. Usually about 70% of the money given to private charities goes to the needy. But only about 30% of tax money collected for the needy goes to them. So supporting private charities is a much better way to help people than growing government.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s