BigRedBuster
Well-known member
I agree. The arguments and debates should be at the time of the budget....not when the bills need to be paid.
2018 mid-term
- Thread starter BigRedBuster
- Start date
I agree. The arguments and debates should be at the time of the budget....not when the bills need to be paid.
BigRedBuster
Well-known member
But then.....
funhusker
Active member
I'm all for investment in green energy and rebuilding infrastructure. I think addressing the needs created by climate change and our failing public works are definitely worthwhile goals. But so is paying for them. If they can't "cut" something, raise taxes.
I know government budgets/debts are much more complicated than simple credits and debits. But instituting a multi-trillion dollar program with no intention of funding it is crazy....
I think Claire McCaskill was right about some of these new members. Their hearts are in the right place, but they are going to be pretty disappointed when they realize what they can actually achieve.
Last edited by a moderator:
Landlord
Banned
It sure sounds crazy, and comes across as crazy, but going forward without taking absolutely drastic and immediate steps - HUGE steps, like, tomorrow - to combat climate change is infinitely more crazy. We are at 11:59 on that doomsday clock. Right now.
funhusker
Active member
And because of that, funds should be raised to pay for it. Maybe eliminate fossil fuel subsidies and/or increase revenue. I agree that huge steps should be taken.
Yelling over and over again that we need to do something, isn't doing anything. Proposing a bill that has zero% chance of passing isn't doing anything. If we are going to rely on our government to "do something", a framework of legitimate programs and policies need to be fleshed out and funded. Otherwise, we aren't doing anything.
Last edited by a moderator:
RedDenver
Active member
The pay-go rule isn't about paying for things and balancing budgets. It's about procedures and stupidity in politics. This rule simply gives Republicans in the House the ammo to shoot down spending, which the Dems are going to stupidly just hand over to them. Notice that this rule wasn't in effect for the Republicans when they were in power. This is another example of why the Dems are bad at politics.
funhusker
Active member
I did notice. And it's a big reason why I don't trust the GOP.
I'm for universal healthcare. I'm for green energy and an aggressive approach to climate change. I'm for rebuilding our infrastructure. I'm for a lot of things that cost a lot of money. I'm also okay for raising taxes and making cuts to pay for them. I just don't get why Dems think the words "raise taxes" is a dirty word. If we citizens are getting something for our money (like a planet to live on) it should seem like a "steal". I think most families would be ecstatic to pay $5000 a year in taxes to pay for healthcare instead of the $12000 they pay to private companies in the forms of premiums and deductibles.
American people aren't all dumb. Lay out the problems. Lay out the math. Lay out the benefits.
Maybe I have too much faith in Americans....
Last edited by a moderator:
RedDenver
Active member
These types of own-goals are just embarrassing for the Dems. Pelosi needs to be removed from leadership. Sad that only 2 members have the smarts and the integrity to point out how stupid this is.
Ulty
Active member
Maybe I have too much faith in Americans....
That's it right there. The number of Americans who think through these issues and vote in the best long-term interest of the country is sadly outnumbered.
RedDenver
Active member
That's all fine. But the pay-go rule doesn't help with any of that. It simply forces another vote over whether to waive the rule depending on if the CBO says the new bill is estimated to cost more than the proposed cuts and revenue increases and gives the Republicans an additional talking-point about whether the Dems are following their own rule. The bill can be budget-balanced regardless of any pay-go rule - so the only reason to have this rule is if Pelosi and the Dems want another way to prevent spending but only spending by the Dem-controlled House. The Republicans don't have this problem because they don't stupidly handicap themselves.I'm for universal healthcare. I'm for green energy and an aggressive approach to climate change. I'm for rebuilding our infrastructure. I'm for a lot of things that cost a lot of money. I'm also okay for raising taxes and making cuts to pay for them. I just don't get why Dems think the words "raise taxes" is a dirty word. If we citizens are getting something for our money (like a planet to live on) it should seem like a "steal". I think most families would be ecstatic to pay $5000 a year in taxes to pay for healthcare instead of the $12000 they pay to private companies in the forms of premiums and deductibles.
American people aren't all dumb. Lay out the problems. Lay out the math. Lay out the benefits.
Maybe I have too much faith in Americans....
Danny Bateman
Donor
Long term there's a chance of a payoff here. If we actually are undergoing political realignment, being the party of actual fiscal responsibility instead of just portraying yourself that way like the GOP does could further push suburban Americans further toward the Dems. But if they're just temporarily bailing on the GOP due to Trump, it wouldn't really serve any long-term interest.
Ultimately I think them voting against it and having their voices in Congress is a very good thing. Having more leftists voices in Congress could wind up more like the Parliamentary system other countries use where Greens constitute their own bloc but not a big enough one to govern without forming a coalition with others. I would love a system like that. Ultimately I'm cool with them pushing the Dems leftward because while I still think America is a rather moderate country, our politics have drifted further right than I'm comfortable with and while the Dems are center-left they're much more center than left at this point.
schriznoeder
New member
[No message]
BigRedBuster
Well-known member
[No message]
Danny Bateman
Donor
McMullin badly misses the mark on the progressive view of the wealthy.
Pointing out that the incredibly wealthy have disproportionate, damaging influence on our politics here is accurate and in no way comparable to the way Trump and his ilk treat Muslims, African Americans, Hispanics and other minorities and immigrants.