- Joined
- Sep 9, 2005
- Messages
- 35,174
- Reaction score
- 12,560
- Location
- Pennsylvania
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/02/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-democratic-rules/index.html
(CNN)Leading progressives are threatening to reject a rules package backed by Democratic leadership over a requirement they believe could thwart their most ambitious policy plans.
New York Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and California Rep. Ro Khanna said Wednesday they will vote against any guidelines that include a provision known as "PAYGO," or "pay as you go," which requires that new spending be offset by matching cuts or increases in revenue.
Progressives who support programs like "Medicare-for-all" and other policies likely to increase government expenditures worry that the rule would create a self-imposed obstacle with limited political upside -- and come across as a sign that Democrats are committed to the austerity economics championed, at least rhetorically, by conservative groups.
I completely agree with Ocasio-Cortez and Khanna on this.
PayGo is utterly unacceptable.
I'm a bit upset with the democrats for even considering doing such a thing, although I can't say it's surprising.
It is a thinly veiled attempt to put in place a rule they can point to later and use it as a reason not to support necessary action.
[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]
I completely agree with Ocasio-Cortez and Khanna on this.
PayGo is utterly unacceptable.
I'm a bit upset with the democrats for even considering doing such a thing, although I can't say it's surprising.
It is a thinly veiled attempt to put in place a rule they can point to later and use it as a reason not to support necessary action.
[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]
I completely agree with Ocasio-Cortez and Khanna on this.
PayGo is utterly unacceptable.
I'm a bit upset with the democrats for even considering doing such a thing, although I can't say it's surprising.
It is a thinly veiled attempt to put in place a rule they can point to later and use it as a reason not to support necessary action.
[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]
I'm no expert on "paygo," but as I understand it the House can't unilaterally abandon paygo. They'd need a filibuster proof majority in the Senate to pull that off (assuming they don't go nuclear).
I completely agree with Ocasio-Cortez and Khanna on this.
PayGo is utterly unacceptable.
I'm a bit upset with the democrats for even considering doing such a thing, although I can't say it's surprising.
It is a thinly veiled attempt to put in place a rule they can point to later and use it as a reason not to support necessary action.
[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]
If it’s necessary then you need find a way to pay for it. There’s no sense at all in creating the biggest social dependency in this nation’s history in a way that dooms it to collapse under the weight of its own costs. Despite what Cortez might think - Monopoly money is not a form of legal tender.
I don't know what that crack is about, but she's opposed to it because it's the establishment democrats trying to create an excuse not to pass bills on policies she supports.What’s funny is Miss Muffet Cortez actually would even pay lip service to paying for anything “as you go”!
Republicans don't care about paying for their bills any more than democrats do.
This is entirely about creating an excuse not to pass bills to address issues.
That may be the excuse to implement it, but it's not the reason it's being proposed.No, this is about typical progressive refusal to disclose the financial details of the guargantuan multi-trillion dollar social programs they demand the government adopt. The need for additional revenue to pay for that is an inevitable conversation so why not have it up front? Your criticisms are about chump change which the Treasury easily obtains loans to cover. But there’s no financial institution anywhere with the capital and assets to make multi-trillion loans so you don’t have a choice. If you want the program then you must simultaneously establish the revenue stream to pay for it.
What’s funny is Miss Muffet Cortez actually would even pay lip service to paying for anything “as you go”!
Revenue HASN'T been cut, in fact it was up about 3% in first two months of this fiscal year under Trumps "cuts" vs last with cuts. As usual the deficit is driven by spending.Did the source article really call Ocasio-Cortez and Khanna "leading progressives"? Between the 2 of them, they have a total of 2 years on the job...
And PAYGO is important, especially with the damage done by Trump and republicans policy of cut revenue while drastically increasing spending.
Revenue HASN'T been cut, in fact it was up about 3% in first two months of this fiscal year under Trumps "cuts" vs last with cuts. As usual the deficit is driven by spending.
My limited understanding of PAYGO is all about the national debt we have the huge deficit problem.
So you either cut to make up the costs or you increase revenues like new or larger taxes to pay for bigger spending.
I completely agree with Ocasio-Cortez and Khanna on this.
PayGo is utterly unacceptable.
I'm a bit upset with the democrats for even considering doing such a thing, although I can't say it's surprising.
It is a thinly veiled attempt to put in place a rule they can point to later and use it as a reason not to support necessary action.
[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]
Sorry, no, without the tax cuts there's to way corporate income would have gone up that much. All those LW cliché's ignore economic facts.It was cut below the level it would have been without the tax cuts. Revenue goes up almost every year. They would have been up more without the tax cuts. Or to put it another way, revenue growth is significantly down.
Revenue HASN'T been cut, in fact it was up about 3% in first two months of this fiscal year under Trumps "cuts" vs last with cuts. As usual the deficit is driven by spending.
I completely agree with Ocasio-Cortez and Khanna on this.
PayGo is utterly unacceptable.
I'm a bit upset with the democrats for even considering doing such a thing, although I can't say it's surprising.
It is a thinly veiled attempt to put in place a rule they can point to later and use it as a reason not to support necessary action.
[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]
Sorry, no, without the tax cuts there's to way corporate income would have gone up that much. All those LW cliché's ignore economic facts.
I completely agree with Ocasio-Cortez and Khanna on this.
PayGo is utterly unacceptable.
I'm a bit upset with the democrats for even considering doing such a thing, although I can't say it's surprising.
It is a thinly veiled attempt to put in place a rule they can point to later and use it as a reason not to support necessary action.
[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]
Ok, here's one hard number corporate income tax revenue for October and November FY 2019 was six billion dollars - a mere FIVE MILLION more than during the same period last fiscal year. You guys can continue playing the Baghdad Bob of taxes as long as you want but that statue of Obama is coming down.Ah yes, the game of switching between absolute numbers and percentages and what is being compared as convenient. I do hope you realize that you are betting on at least X% of people not knowing what the hell they are talking about and that you know well enough what X is when you try to make that fly.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?