Law Democrats vote to support Paygo package only 3 democrats voted against

[japman40]

 

[franklinstower]

The only 3 that have a backbone to fight with Nancy and her political machine. Yes it's TYT I know already if you don't want to watch it you don't have to. Internally people where told to get in line with Nancy or face backlash.

Ocasio-Cortez, Khanna and Tulsi Gabbard


https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/02/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-democratic-rules/index.html

Provisions in this bill will not allow dems to increase the budget for ten years effectively killing ANY chances for infrastructure universal health care or any other progressive agendas.

Shots fired by the corporate owned and operated democrats.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

Can someone tell me what this means?

That the democrats are now the party of fiscal responsibility.
No, really, it sounds bad. Fiscal responsibility is a good thing, but paygo seems excessively harsh. Raising the debt a little to do good things is not a bad action. Moreover what is the point of balancing the budget so that republicans can cut more taxes later on?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/03/opinion/house-democrats-budget-deficit.html

 

[IGIT]

Provisions in this bill will not allow dems to increase the budget for ten years effectively killing ANY chances for infrastructure universal health care or any other progressive agendas.

Shots fired by the corporate owned and operated democrats.

hello there franklinstower,

its nothing. its all just maneuvering to make the GOP look stupid. a fun stunt, for those who have pined for stuff like this.

obviously the Democrats are not running on killing single payor forever and eternity.

the part that i like is that it brings misunderstood issue into sharp relief;

eventually, Americans need to grasp that the fiscally responsible Presidents of the last half century all had the letter "D" next to their names. for reasons unknown to me, the GOP have weirdly managed to accumulate a huge amount of credit on the issue.

- IGIT

 

[franklinstower]

hello there franklinstower,

its nothing. its all just maneuvering to make the GOP look stupid. a fun stunt, for those who have pined for stuff like this.

obviously the Democrats are not running on killing single payor forever and eternity.

the part that i like is that it brings misunderstood issue into sharp relief;

eventually, Americans need to grasp that the fiscally responsible Presidents of the last century all had the letter "D" next to their names. for reasons unknown to me, the GOP have weirdly managed to accumulate a huge amount of credit on the issue.

- IGIT

I disagree strongly. I think this is a move by the corporate dems to hamstring progressive policies.

 

[IGIT]

I disagree strongly. I think this is a move by the corporate dems to hamstring progressive policies.

hi again franlinstower,

corporate dems or neoliberals, or whatever you want to call them, watched Mrs. Clinton defeat Mr. Sanders pretty handily just two years ago.

that's Hillary "the most inept and horrible politician in the history of the republic" Clinton, and she squashed Bernie (whom i voted for in the primary). i doubt they're worried too much.

this is not a move to do anything - though its a good opportunity to take a look at the absurdity of the GOP's "fiscal responsibility" pose that they've struck for decades upon decades.

- IGIT

 

[franklinstower]

hi again franlinstower,

corporate dems or neoliberals, or whatever you want to call them, watched Mrs. Clinton defeat Mr. Sanders pretty handily just two years ago.

that's Hillary the "terrible most corrupt politician in the history of the republic" Clinton, and she squashed Bernie (whom i voted for in the primary).

this is not a move to do anything - though its a good opportunity to take a look at the absurdity of the GOP's "fiscal responsibility" absurdity.

- IGIT

We will have to agree to disagree.

 

[IGIT]

We will have to agree to disagree.

heya franklinstower,

sure, that's alright.

either way, Mrs. Pelosi cannot get any proposed legislation passed without the aid of President Trump. so i wouldn't worry about it - unless symbolic votes hold alot of....errr....symbolism to you.

- IGIT

 

[VivaRevolution]

For people who don't understand, this is to prevent Medicare for all.

It is literally impossible to pass single payer with this law in place.

 

[Trotsky]

For people who don't understand, this is to prevent Medicare for all.

It is literally impossible to pass single payer with this law in place.

No it's not, and no it's not. The reflexive assumption that Democrats are trying to sabotage single payer, something that has been in and out of the party playbook for decades, is just silly. This is, first and foremost, a policy about (the optics of) fiscal discipline and reaffirming the Democrats as the party of fiscal responsibility. Even if some dead-end attempt at single payer legislation were concocted in the next two years (which may or may not have symbolic value down the road, even if it would certainly get nixed in the Senate), it could still be done so long as it was sufficiently funded.

I do agree with you (and AOC and Khanna) though on this not being desirable for if/when Democrats shore up control in Congress and/or the presidency. Democrats have lost before and will lose again if they have to fight for funding before fighting for the funded programs/initiatives. Raising taxes responsibly will never win in a beauty pageant against cutting taxes irresponsibly, because voters are stupid and don't understand how repugnant and dishonest Republican fiscal policy has become.

 

[VivaRevolution]

No it's not, and no it's not. The reflexive assumption that Democrats are trying to sabotage single payer, something that has been in and out of the party playbook for decades, is just silly. This is, first and foremost, a policy about (the optics of) fiscal discipline and reaffirming the Democrats as the party of fiscal responsibility. Even if some dead-end attempt at single payer legislation were concocted in the next two years (which may or may not have symbolic value down the road, even if it would certainly get nixed in the Senate), it could still be done so long as it was sufficiently funded.

I do agree with you (and AOC and Khanna) though on this not being desirable for if/when Democrats shore up control in Congress and/or the presidency. Democrats have lost before and will lose again if they have to fight for funding before fighting for the funded programs/initiatives. Raising taxes responsibly will never win in a beauty pageant against cutting taxes irresponsibly, because voters are stupid and don't understand how repugnant and dishonest Republican fiscal policy has become.

Ok, so of part of how Medicare for all is going to be funded is in cost savings, how does one go about benefitting from that cost saving in the switch to single payer, if they have to fund it first?

What this law does, is puts a over inflated sticker price on single payer.

It says you can't benefit from cost reductions, unless you pay for it up front.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

My point is we got railroaded for 2 years with tax policies and efforts to cut food stamps and federal aid programs.

Maybe if Democrats hadnt turned into slaves of the Military Industrial Complex we wouldnt have unnecessary wars to pay for and would not need to cut food stamps and federal aid programs to lower our deficit...funny that. People seem to gloss over how Obama ran in 2008 on things like ending both wars, pulling our troops out, not getting into more conflicts, closing down unnecessary expenses like Guantanamo Bay....you know, all the things he did NOT do and instead escalated.

End our military engagements.
Close our military bases around the world that are actually no longer needed and since the world hates us, let them fend for themselves again.
Stop handing out billions to other nations.
End the process started by the Bretton Woods Conference and let the world be reminded of what the world was like before 1955. It would cut 100+ billion in spending and suddenly the world will come crawling back to America and love us again...especially since the vast majority of them dont even KNOW what was done or our sacrifice for them...ending it, and suddenly they will see as their trade ships are sunk or pirated again.

Just doing those 4 things above would cut upwards of $500,000,000,000 in spending.

 

[PEB]

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

Thankfully the Democrats showed they aren't going to be pushed around by tweets from these far left nut cases.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

Right now you have to cut funding to have new programs. This let's you increase revenue to pay.

It's cut funding or raise taxes...it has to be equal.

The anti paygo people wanted to be able to spend as much as they want and not be curtailed by having to cut other money or raise taxes.

 

[PEB]

 

[PEB]

The best part of this is on CNN they are becoming fiscal conservatives since Democrats have taken over the house. I just been listening to CNN and in the last 2 hours the deficit has been discussed 5 times with different Politicians yet when Republicans where in control of both houses and blowing up the debt did not hear next to nothing. They where talking about it like it was the end of the world yet when a 770 billion dollar defense bill and 1.9 trillion in tax cuts where approved no one talked about the debt only Ryan gave small mention before Trump took him into his office.

 

[IGIT]

For people who don't understand, this is to prevent Medicare for all.

It is literally impossible to pass single payer with this law in place.

hello there VivaRevolution,

its not to prevent Medicare for all, my friend.

it just gives Mrs. Pelosi a pie to throw in the face of Republicans the next time they are pining for a gigantic tax cut. its rhetorical jiu jitsu. think about it; where does the overwhelming bulk of the Federal largesse get doled out?

to old people via their social safety net payments, and the military. theoretically, if PayGo was instituted....if you have to cut, well, all the money is pretty much there.

the GOP would rather contract AIDS than cut off Boeing, Raytheon, McDonnell Douglas, Haliburton, etc. and as for cutting the SS/Medicare/Medicaid? it'll never happen - Paul Ryan tried to do it for almost two decades, and you can see how that went.

that's why nobody in the GOP has ever been able to actually articulate what they would cut in their neverending faux-odyssey to balance the budget.

its Mrs. Pelosi kneeing the GOP in the balls, mostly for fun.

this has nothing to do with single payor.

- IGIT

 

[Trotsky]

Ok, so of part of how Medicare for all is going to be funded is in cost savings, how does one go about benefitting from that cost saving in the switch to single payer, if they have to fund it first?

What this law does, is puts a over inflated sticker price on single payer.

It says you can't benefit from cost reductions, unless you pay for it up front.

That's a fair criticism imo. But that doesn't translate to making single payer legislation impossible, nor does it convert to it being the intention of the Democrats to make such legislation either impossible or more difficult.

 

[IGIT]

Thankfully the Democrats showed they aren't going to be pushed around by tweets from these far left nut cases.

hi Mark Hunts FIST,

lol.

the Democrats aren't being remotely serious here.

*ponders*

if Mrs. Pelosi had introduced legislation to ban any gay persons from serving in Congress, of course wet-behind-the-ears Congresspersons Khanna, Ocasio-Cortez and Gabbard would go insane...and then Mrs. Pelosi would convene a meeting in her office and patiently explain;

"the GOP have been railing against gay relations for the last half century, but the thing is, alot of their own representatives secretly crave the penis...they get outted on a regular basis, so lets troll them just for fun!"

something along those lines.

its fine, and i guess this kind of thing is de rigueur in the era of Trump. such is life.

- IGIT