So you are proposing a bill to repeal a law that is practically the same as a rule you voted yes for? Why wouldn’t you just vote no on the rule as well? Why wouldn’t you fight for progressive policies at all levels?
-
-
-
They have no answer for that question
-
The Senate would never pass that legislation. President would never sign. It's an effort to save face with the base. They think we're stupid.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Bold, Unbought, and unbossed...words to live by...
-
The new congressmembers are big on buzzwords, memes and Twitter likes, but those don't pass bills. None of them are going beyond picking old liberal cliches like
#TaxAndSpend or#SaveTheEnvironment. They should do actual hard work, study policy details, and write smart new bills. -
Yeah! Like Trump does.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
But you already validated it by approving the rules and regs. You gave it legitimacy. Better work on figuring out how to get GOP senat support behind the repeal.
@usdemocrats good luck un fuc$$$g this one -
The House rules for PayGo reflect federal law. Changing the House rules is irrelevant if the underlying law isn’t changed. The Progressives got a number of compromises in the new rules, PayGo was not one of them. So now they’re going to change PayGo thru legislation.
-
Yes but wouldn’t reinforcing the rule among them make it harder to get rid of the law?
-
Yes, you’re probably right. 1) Nancy Pelosi and other corporatist politicians, who proudly tout their fundraising prowess/skills, are not on board; and, 2) legislation requires passage in Senate and either get POTUS signature or veto proof tallies in House and Senate. Let’s see.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
As our national debt heads to $22 trillion you want to gut one of the only pieces of legislation to slow it down? What happens when the largest expenditure in the budget is servicing the debt?
-
How the hell did it “slow it down”? The last congress added $2 trillion to the national debt by ignoring PayGo when they lowered corporate taxes.
-
Please explain your 2 trillion number? Corporate taxes were only $332 billion in 2016. So how many years will it take to increase the debt by 2 Trillion? Seems you are using somebodies estimate of future debt instead of actual numbers.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Rep Pressley, yes, you should be bold and unbossed. But by fighting
#PayGo, you are just following the same decades-old#TaxAndSpend profligacy of extreme left wingers and right wingers alike. Where is the originality or boldness in that? Voters want smart policy, not more taxes. -
No, not really. The Federal government has underspent for decades, exacerbating an already demand-constrained economy. Most voters are just fine with higher taxes on the 1%. Eisenhower era marginal tax rates would be perfect.
-
I doubt that increasing tax rates on the 1% will pass either chamber. Americans believe that percentage-based proportional taxation is more than fair. Increasing that % much higher for high income earners strikes us as unfair, un-American and smacks of jealousy.
#NoTaxAndSpend -
What either house is willing to pass and what Americans want and believe are totally separate issues. They are closer to being opposites than identities. Huey Long, FDR, and many others were successful in convincing ordinary folks that their interests weren't the same as the rich
-
Believing that what either House is willing to pass is separate from what Americans want and believe is naive, even clueless. We elect our politicians. The sum total of the views of all the politicians equals our country. FDR was successful because the bills passed both chambers.
-
You believe that representatives represent their constituents, and you're calling me naive?
-
They are forced to represent the majority of their voters, else they lose re-election. With 435 Congress members each roughly representing the same no. of non-overlapping citizens, the statistical distribution of their views well approximates that of the set of actual voters.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
