Without #PAYGO, Congress is free to put more
into the economy than it subtracts away. That money could rebuild infrastructure, fund cancer research, etc. We call it “deficit spending,” which is unfortunate. B/c it all becomes part of the financial surplus *outside* government.
-
-
Show this thread
-
The relevant questions are: (1) Why is that
being spent—i.e. does the spending improve the human condition? & (2) Who ends up with the
surplus—i.e. are you exacerbating or reversing inequality? All deficits improve *someone’s* balance sheet. Ask why and for whom.Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You never cease to impress me with how easily you condense immeasurably important (and complex) issues into easily digestible, tastes nuggets. Thank you for your sacrifices on our behalf. They are not unnoticed. Or unappreciated.
#MMT#NoGoOnPayGo - End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
My understanding is that this version (which was passed before without this level of hand-wringing) allows for taxes to be raised as an option to pay for programs, unlike the GOP version which mandates only cuts. Am I wrong? (Sincerely asking)
-
You are correct. These people are driving themselves into a hysteria for absolutely no reason.
-
There is a reason: they fear establishment Dems will use
#PayGo as an excuse not to implement#Medicare4All. -
Which is odd because they will never get it passed the House, let alone Senate or pres. Pelosi is playing for 2020 here.
-
EXACTLY. I don't know why people are having such a hard time seeing this. She's trying to maintain the House majority at a time huge pieces of progressive legislation will not pass.
-
#medicare4all is a very popular policy. PayGo is a bad rule for many reasons. One of those reasons though is that it gives politicians an easy out to vote against policies like medicare4all. "Sorry, can't do it, it will add to the deficit." -
M4A or other expensive progressive bill isn't passing in the next 2 yrs, but it might have chance in 2020 if we can maintain the House. If PAYGO really were the impediment that people are making it out to be, I doubt nearly the entire progressive caucus would've voted for it.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
It’s the power of the purse being held hostage by leadership to “control” the process. It comes from a place of deep mistrust of populism. People need to rise up and wrest control back from these entrenched and protectionist moneyed interests in order to save life on earth.
Thanks. Twitter will use this info to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
To protect us from helpful policies that might hurt the wallets of Dems' donors?
Thanks. Twitter will use this info to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this info to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@RepDianaDeGette please study Econ 101 and vote No. voting for PayGo just means you are unqualified to represent.Thanks. Twitter will use this info to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Because people who vote republican are stupid.
-
The federal PayGo law was passed by the Dems and signed by Obama in 2010. The stupidity is bipartisan.
-
Had breakfast yet? Here, have some context.https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/34/enforce-pay-as-you-go-paygo-budget-rules/ …
-
This crap article implies that Obama’s PayGo was a good idea for which he deserves credit. It’s not. It isn’t just the Republican variation—the whole *idea* of PayGo is reactionary economic nonsense. Obama deserves no credit for salting the earth.
-
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.
would we want a rule to prohibit *net*
